|
Both, to my opinion, but with emphasis on the latter
|
| bet | 6/7 | | Sana | 23.03.2021 | | Hajmi | 15,17 Kb. | | #13408 |
Both, to my opinion, but with emphasis on the latter
(b) Does it point to additional expert meetings and / or programme committees, which could report back to the IGF and help prepare its meetings? Should possible sub-structures be supported by organizations with the relevant expertise?
I do not think so
7 The Tunis Agenda does not elaborate on aspects related to the funding of the IGF.
How do you think the IGF should be financed?
8 Para 74 mentions the “proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet governance and the need to ensure their full involvement”.
What steps should be taken to identify and engage all stakeholders and what needs to be done to make best possible use of their competencies?
A thourough inventory should be taken, with the contribution/support of existing organizations and there stakeholders/members
9 Para 74 also encourages the Secretary-General “to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum”.
Are there any other options not addressed in the questions above? What are these options as you understand them?
10 Paragraph 72 (a) of the Tunis Agenda gives the IGF the mandate to “discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet”.
(a) What are these issues?
One of the first activities of the forum and its bureau should be taking stock of all major topics concerning internet governance and the organizations dealing with them. With these organizations and other stakeholders it should be decided which issues will be dealt with by the IGF
(b) Are they all the issues mentioned in the Chapter on Internet Governance in the Tunis Agenda?
|
| |
