<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">George,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(80,0,80)">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial;font-size:small"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">
Thank you for clarification.</div></div></span></div></div></span></span></span></div></div></span></span></span></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:11 PM, George Sadowsky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Below are responses to both Mawaki and Michael Gurstein:<br>
<br>
Mawaki,<br>
<br>
Yes, the structure and participatory model are different, and that would make some difference.� My concern is that if IGF is to be captured by the UN, changes would likely change place over time that would be at the sole discretion of the UN.<br>
<br>
So to be direct in responding, I think that the evolution toward a "permanent" body within the UN ecosystem (to use a fashionable term) would likely mean the weakening of the multistakeholder ownership and bottom-up nature of the IGF processes.� I point to the ITU as an example; its mandate is governed by its 190+ countries that have ITU membership, and their decision are the ones that determined the work plan of the organization.� The same is true for the UN Secretariat, and nothing in any agreement between the UN and the IGF will alter that.<br>
<br>
Mawaki, I think both the UN and the IGF are important and positive institutions in their own way.� My argument is with the IGF going solidly and/or permanently under the UN umbrella, nothing more.</blockquote><div><br></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I do understand your point and take it for exactly what it is. On the other hand I am skeptical about thinking that there is any way possible IGF would still be IGF without the broad community involvement, participation and ownership that we've come to know with the current IGF. If it were to become fully a (specialized) UN agency just like UNESCO or ITU, mainly based on nation-state membership (with some extension to corporate/ non-UN organizational entities like with ITU), it would lose a lot of the community participation and energy, running the risk to become a duplication of ITU only with a narrower scope, possibly. Which would be a problem for the UN itself (and for ITU, incidentally.) In sum, that would be self-defeating on nearly all accounts, at least.�</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Instead (and as a thought experiment beyond the current statement drafting exercise), I was thinking of the possibility of something hybrid where IGF could retain the UN cach�, institutional capacity and type of legitimacy but without the minuses :) whereby the current authority solely held by the UN/UNGA will be shared among a multistakeholder governing body including UN inter pares with ICANN, ISOC, etc. possibly ITU, UNESCO, etc. CS individuals/organizations, Academics, possibly a couple of individual governments, etc. perhaps a total of some 21-25 maximum members for instance (sorry, I don't mean to be exhaustive here, but just to give an idea.) In addition to that there would be a lean Secretariat (the actual entity to be incorporated/registered) that would pretty much looks like the one we've got now but with more support, and an advisory body which would take over from the current MAG. It would be that governing multistakeholder body (not to be incorporated) which will make the highest decisions regarding the IGF including, with the community inputs, whether to discontinue IGF altogether when such time comes as when the Forum is no longer serving its purpose. (A joint meeting with both the governing and the advisory bodies might assume the role of 'general assembly' for this non-profit "Secretariat" reviewing financial accounts and making sure the rules and procedures are followed by the "Secretariat".) �Of course the mechanism to appoint the members of the governing body with possible rotations will have to be carefully designed and accepted by the community (rough consensus?).</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">As I said, just a thought experiment reflecting my initial assessment of the situation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">
Thanks,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Mawaki</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">� See my response to Michael below for more.<br>
<br>
On a personal note, I'm quite glad to see you intervening on these various lists, and I think that your posts are generally really thoughtful and excellent.� I never delete or file them before taking the time to read them completely.<br>
<br>
George<br>
<div class=""><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div>