Postponed: Renewal of the IGF Mandate

[Joana Varon]

Hi all,

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.

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 :)

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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVBLIxBiuKs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h8m19s

safe travels to everyone

joana

-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73



On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>  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)
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Does that sound sensible?
> Cheers Stephanie
> PS in the meantime, we are still getting signatures.
> On 2014-09-06, 11:07, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> 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 www.igfcontinuation.org is only designed to accept
> sign-ons of organizations, countries, and individuals.
>
>  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?
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140906/4af8b376/attachment.htm>