<div dir="ltr">Hi all, <div><br><div>It would be great if that effort doesn't die. Besides CS and academy, particularly statements of US, Brazil and Janis were very encouraging in the closing session. </div><div><br></div><div>To solve controversies, it would be great if people who were more closely involved in the drafting could quickly list the contradictory issues that popped up in the negotiations. We were all involved in a lot over the week and might have lost the nuances (at least I did :) </div><div><br></div><div>Watching the video of the closing session, I could see that Brazil has addressed the existence of the draft statement and explicitly highlighted the need for IGF as permanent forum, with open ended mandate and financial sustainability. What can be seen at min 2:26 of the video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVBLIxBiuKs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h8m19s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVBLIxBiuKs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h8m19s</a></div><div><br></div><div>safe travels to everyone</div><div><br></div><div>joana</div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">-- <br>-- <br><br>Joana Varon Ferraz<br>@joana_varon<br>PGP 0x016B8E73<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</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">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I am not sure who you are responding to here Sam...Bill, me,
Jeanette, Avri, Remmy....have all commented on this. We have
numerous lists to discuss the broader issues of IGF...I think we do
need to put something on the other lists (I had said in an earlier
post not to forward my long note on strategy as I was writing it for
internal NCSG consumption. (by the way, I used the word Netmundial
when I meant IGF, sorry about that. Tired)<br>
The facts and the gathering of stakeholder views should go on the
other lists. There is already a discussion going on and I responded
to a few posts re the sign on.<br>
Personally, I dont think we need to rush to start drafting another
text. Let the other players come back to us with a proposal, then
we send out to all our civil society folks for a concensus
decision. I will do another update to the lists in a day or so once
we see if any of the commercial or govt actors come back to us.
There were 4 mentions of the proposal in the closing ceremonies,
which we are quite pleased about, and we also need to report on that
to stakeholders. <br>
Further to that, there is already a pad which we set up to draft the
first one. We can drop any new draft we get from the commercial or
govt folks into that pad, just to avoid proliferation of information
vehicles.<br>
Does that sound sensible?<br>
Cheers Stephanie<br>
PS in the meantime, we are still getting signatures. <br><div><div class="h5">
<div>On 2014-09-06, 11:07, Sam Lanfranco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
There is an issue here. The IGF is larger than and apart from
NCSG. More than just NCSG folk need to be involved in refining the
proposal to give it, at least, the bare bones of how it would
operate. That includes how it would link to regional IGFs, as well
as funding, accountability, monitoring and evaluation....to keep
it on a good track. The new "neutral website" for this effort at <a href="http://www.igfcontinuation.org" target="_blank">www.igfcontinuation.org</a>
is only designed to accept sign-ons of organizations, countries,
and individuals.<br>
<br>
What sort of electronic venue (wiki?) is being considered so that
the rest of the world's stakeholders, beyond NCSG, can participate
in the framing dialogue that refines the recommendation?<br>
<br>
Sam L. <u></u><u></u>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div><br><br>
</div></div></div></div>