[discuss] [bestbits] Re: Draft statement on making IGF permanent

Tue Sep 2 16:18:10 UTC 2014

Hi George,

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:54 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> [cross-posted to BestBits list due to commonality of discussion]
>
> <snippet>
>
> Furthermore, if you look at the UN's record on the development side of
> computing and networking, it's not good.  The last two efforts, the
> committee headed by the nice Russian guy Sergei from 2000-2004, and GAID
> from 2005-2008 headed by Sarbuland Khan, have done virtually nothing to
> assist in ICT for Development.  Worse, they have spent millions of dollars,
> and worst of all, by virtue of their existence, they have pre-empted the
> center of discussion and have thereby prevented the possible emergence of
> more innovative and useful.  I would not expect any permanent role for the
> IGF within the UN to produce any better results.
>

Just to make sure I understand you well, isn't the structure and the
participatory model of IGF different enough from those two examples you
just cited so as to expect different results regardless of the level of
institutionalization with the UN? Otherwise stated, are you assuming with
your above assertion that an evolution toward a "permanent" body within the
UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would necessarily mean the
disappearance of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the
IGF processes?

Again and to state it more explicitly, by asking this, I'm not necessarily
advocating the creation of a new UN body for IGF.
Thanks,

Mawaki

>
> George
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <
> nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
>
> > Standing bodies - and even institutions - in the UN system rarely ever
> get abolished, even when they are clearly overtaken by events.
> >
> > Just for information.
> >
> > On 2 Sep 2014, at 11:30, manning bill <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> it is rare to find a human structure that is "permanent", so perhaps,
> in this case, the term is more a term of art, to deal with the UN.
> >> I can see a possible future in which the IGF has been overcome by
> events - in which case, having a permanent, but useless structure becomes
> >> an artifact where zero real work gets done.
> >>
> >> /bill
> >> PO Box 12317
> >> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> >> 310.322.8102
> >>
> >> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 9:24, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> One of the ideas of the statement is to decouple the issues of
> improvement and evolution from the renewal of the mandate. The IGF will
> always be in need of evolution.
> >>>
> >>> jeanette
> >>>
> >>> Am 02.09.14 17:13, schrieb manning bill:
> >>>> permanent implies that no further evolution/change is
> needed/required/desired.
> >>>> Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> /bill
> >>>> PO Box 12317
> >>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> >>>> 310.322.8102
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2September2014Tuesday, at 8:03, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed
> (UTF-8272565%25.dat). Please read the "ISI-4-43-8-Attachment-Warning.txt"
> attachment(s) for more information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft
> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on various
> aspects of the document and made the required revisions.  Please send your
> comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and formal approval process
> tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the pad at
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
> >>>>> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each
> of these lists)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
> received so far:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that
> projects in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the
> Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request could
> imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement
> but that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get
> advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the
> UN General Assembly.
> >>>>>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement
> from the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even if
> we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce outcomes)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other
> aspects such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night,
> IGF local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support for
> it.
> >>>>>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We
> are inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jeanette
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
> >>>>>>> (removed cross posting)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping
> the text
> >>>>>>> relatively brief
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
> >>>>>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires
> the
> >>>>>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to
> that end.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of
> the
> >>>>>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being
> collected
> >>>>>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9
> years.
> >>>>>>> As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some
> examples can
> >>>>>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress
> being
> >>>>>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> avri
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little
> bit. I support it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wolfgang
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>>>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von
> Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
> >>>>>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
> >>>>>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
> permanent basis.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to
> the IGF
> >>>>>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
> >>>>>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
> >>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection
> Service
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> The original e-mail attachment "UTF-8272565%25.dat"
> >>>>> has an unusual filename and could possibly be infected with a virus.
> >>>>> As a precaution, the attachment has been quarantined.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Virus scanner report for Tue Sep 2 08:04:46 2014:
> >>>>> MailScanner: Very long filenames are good signs of attacks against
> Microsoft e-mail packages (UTF-8272565%25.dat)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quarantine location: vapor 4-43-8 /var/spool/quarantine/20140902
> (message s82F4YpS009135).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you were expecting the attachment and would like to receive it,
> >>>>> please forward this e-mail to action at isi.edu for assistance. If this
> >>>>> is urgent, please call Action at x88289 after forwarding the message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IPC Computing Services
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> discuss mailing list
> >>>>> discuss at 1net.org
> >>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing list
> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nick Ashton-Hart
> > Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA)
> > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
> > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
> > USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
> > email: nashton at internet-ecosystem.org
> > Jabber/GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
> > PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  9B0A
> 522 6
> > Skype: nashtonhart
> > www.internet-ecosystem.org
> >
> > One-click digital business card for your address book:
> http://evaunt.me/vEbDF/NickAshton-Hart
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140902/514b005b/attachment-0001.html>