IGF Discussion Space
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 19, 2017, 11:46:21 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search

Select language:

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1   IGF Hyderabad meeting / Suggestions for the Meeting in Hyderabad / Book announcement: Multistakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum on: May 28, 2008, 01:16:59 AM
I am pleased to announce a new book - please excuse the cross-posting to several lists.

Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum
Author: Jeremy Malcolm
Published: May 2008
ISBN: 978-0-9805084-0-6
Pages: 639

Multi-stakeholder governance is a fresh approach to the development of public policy, bringing together governments, the private sector and civil society in partnership.  The movement towards this new governance paradigm has been most marked in areas involving global networks of stakeholders, too intricate to be represented by governments alone.  Nowhere is this better illustrated than on the Internet, where it is an inherent characteristic of the network that laws, and the conduct to which those laws are directed, will cross national borders.

Thus momentum has developed to bring multi-stakeholder governance to the Internet, through reforms such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).  In this groundbreaking and incisive book, Jeremy Malcolm examines the new model of multi-stakeholder governance for the Internet regime that the IGF represents.  In doing so Jeremy outlines the state of the regime as it preceded the IGF's formation, and provides a faithful yet accessible account of international law, international relations, democratic theory and consensus decision-making as they bear on the topic.  He then builds a compelling case for the reform of the IGF to enable it to fulfil its mandate as an institution for multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

"A book that ought to be read by every participant in the UN Internet Governance Forum. Malcolm provides an exhaustive exploration of the great potential -- and the obstacles and dead ends -- faced by multi-stakeholder policy making around the Internet."

Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School Of Information Studies and XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology

"Internet governance, once a distant abstraction, increasingly touches everyone, even those seemingly remote from the Net. Jeremy Malcolm's in-depth analysis of its recent evolution and the role of the IGF, a key player in this rapidly developing field, is a timely contribution and a useful reference for scholars, practitioners and policymakers alike."

David Vaile, Executive Director, Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre

For more information please see:

* The publisher's Web site: http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook
* Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC
* Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0980508401
* Press contact: +61-8-9213 0801 / [email protected]
2  Preparatory Process / Draft schedule/programme / Re: Discussion on the draft programme/schedule for the Hyderabad meeting on: April 30, 2008, 01:22:08 PM
The draft programme for the Hyderabad meeting incorporates a number of incremental improvements to the programmes for the Athens and Rio meetings which take into account some of the concerns and suggestions that civil society and other stakeholders have long expressed.  However whilst this movement is in the right direction, the rate of progress remains too slow in light of the fact that at the mid-term of its initial five year mandate, the IGF remains incapable of fulfilling each of the roles that the Tunis Agenda sets out for it.

To begin with, it is laudable that the Secretariat has joined the majority of stakeholders in recognising the need to refresh the now-stale and ineffective main sessions for the next meeting.  To this end the new draft programme suggests that more "specific issues" be the focus of the main sessions in Hyderabad.  However, this alone will not redress the problems of relevance that attended the plenary sessions in Athens and Rio.  Most important is not how specific the issues under discussion are, but whether those issues bear on the governance of the Internet rather than simply its use.

For example, to discuss the quality of peer produced content (to select at random a topic chosen for last year's plenary meeting), whilst interesting and a suitable topic for a conference on the sociology of the Internet, does not touch on the IGF's mandate and it inevitably achieves little.  Instead, to continue the example, discussion should be directed as to how (if at all) peer production should be governed and in what respects - that is, through norms (perhaps codified in a voluntary code of conduct), laws (subject to the observance of human rights standards), or some other mechanism.

A second proposed reform, responding (though not expressly) to a suggestion from civil society stakeholders such as IT For Change, is for certain workshops to be held on topics defined by the MAG and linked to main sessions, rather than being left entirely at large for ground-up development.  These workshops would not be held to conflict with main sessions, to facilitate the attendance of all interested stakeholders.  The overload of events will be further reduced through a moratorium of meetings during the lunchbreak or after 6pm.

These suggestions as to scheduling represent an advance over previous meetings, but do not go far enough.  It should be that workshops and main sessions are held on different days altogether, so that none of them conflict with each other.  This is common practice elsewhere in the Internet community, for example in the annual APRICOT conference (http://www.apricot.net/), at which workshops precede the main conference days.  This would foster a greater sense of purpose and community amongst IGF participants than the fragmented programmes of Athens and Rio made possible.

An additional change foreshadowed in the draft programme is that event organisers would be required to present a report on their events, failing which they would be disqualified from holding similar events in the following year.  This is a sensible suggestion, but does not sufficiently redress the lack of control that the IGF at large exercises over the activities of those acting under its auspices, and in particular its de-facto working groups, the dynamic coalitions.

Specifically, it has long been contended by the author and others from civil society, and has more recently been acknowledged by the MAG also, that criteria should be developed in open consultation with all IGF stakeholders by which dynamic coalitions (and, if relevant, other working groups that may form under the IGF) to be accredited for their compliance with basic norms of democratic and multi-stakeholder procedure.  Why has this widely-accepted deficit still not yet been addressed?

A fourth reform that has been put forward in the draft programme is that further efforts should be made to enable remote participation.  This, again, is a reform for which the author and many other stakeholders have long been calling.  It is regrettable, then, that there has been no sign of any progress towards its implementation ahead of the Hyderabad meeting, or at least that any such progress that may have been made has taken place behind closed doors.

It is insufficient for the Secretariat simply to rely upon the decentralised action of stakeholders to make good the deficit in mechanisms for remote participation on a voluntary and unfunded basis.  If real progress towards a better experience for remote participants is to be achieved, it will need to be actively facilitated and funded by the Secretariat in open consultation with stakeholder groups working in this area.  Although the Secretariat's funding is limited, if comparable priority were accorded to online engagement as is accorded to the annual meeting, the IGF's facilities for remote participation could be second to none.

Finally, on the proposed new themes for the plenary sessions - Universalisation of the Internet and Managing the Internet, I also have some concerns.  Taking the first of these to begin with, although development objectives are important, these are also those themes that have the greatest potential for overlap with the other follow-up mechanisms from WSIS, and also tend to raise questions of governance of the Internet only very incidentally.  Consequently, I question whether they merit over a full day of time on the Hyderabad programme to the exclusion of other governance topics.

As for Managing the Internet, my only concern is that the alternative title for this stream of "Using the Internet" should not be further entertained.  The IGF is not a conference about the use of the Internet.  It is a multi-stakeholder public policy governance forum.  By having allowed the first two meetings to become symposia for the aimless discussion of issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, much of its early potential has been wasted.  "Managing the Internet" more appropriately redirects the focus of the forum towards its principal purpose: that of Internet governance.

Beyond the minor vaunted reforms that have been described above, and which do deserve some credit, it is at the same time disappointing that a more radical rethinking of the basic format of conference-style plenary sessions accompanied by stakeholder-organised workshops has not been undertaken.  My previous submissions have explained in detail why little progress will be made towards the fuller achievement of the IGF's mandate while its main sessions are structured as a conference rather than as a deliberative forum.

Without repeating those submissions, it will be necessary for the IGF to embrace more deliberative forms of discussion, in which participants are assisted by trained facilitators to engage in intensive small-group discourse on discrete issues of Internet-related public policy.  Such processes of democratic deliberation should extend not only to the annual plenary meeting, but also to on-line fora, as well as supportive intersessional and regional activities.
3   IGF Hyderabad meeting / Suggestions for the Meeting in Hyderabad / Link to my comments on: January 03, 2008, 12:11:33 AM
My comments are found at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/feedback-for-taking-stock-of-rio.
4  Preparatory Process / Advisory Group / Re: Renewal of the Advisory Group on: December 30, 2007, 12:48:57 AM
More is required for the renewal of the Advisory Group than simply providing for the rotation of its membership.  Such rotation will do nothing to make the Advisory Group more effective and accountable than it has been to date, both of which are sorely required.  Rather, three parallel reforms are necessary: the self-selection of Advisory Group members by stakeholders, the Advisory Group's empowerment to make decisions through a defined process, and the improvement of its accountability and transparency.

Taking these in turn, the first and most important of the above reforms is that the Advisory Group must be legitimised through the direct selection of its members by the constituent stakeholder groups.  The process by which the members of the Advisory Group are appointed at present is undocumented and uncertain.  No public criteria for nominees have ever been posted.  Those who self-nominate are not even informed of the outcomes of their nominations.

The Chairman has claimed that the process of appointment involves wide consultation, but consultation with whom, and why with them and not others, and how is this consultation advertised?  In reality, access to appointment to the Advisory Group is closed to those who are not already insiders in the WSIS process, and this results in a very narrow and insular group with little connection with ordinary Internet users.  This must change.

I propose that a new, multi-stakeholder nominating committee be formed, akin to that of the IETF.  The nominating committee would be open to participation by any members of the community who wished to do so, and in the likely case of an excess of willing participants, would be selected randomly, preserving equality between the stakeholder groups.

The nominating committee would be charged to develop a slate of candidates from each stakeholder group who fulfilled a given list of criteria (settled through the open consultation process), perhaps including regional and gender balance along with expertise and experience.  Unlike at present, the ability to attend meetings of the Advisory Group in person should not be a criterion for nomination.  Once a slate has been developed, the nominating committee would divide into its stakeholder groups to vote on which representatives of each group should be selected (again, preserving their equality of numbers).

The second necessary reform that has been noted above is that the Advisory Group must be empowered with the authority and the operating procedures to allow it make decisions on behalf of its constituent stakeholder groups, rather simply advising the Secretariat (who, according to legal fiction, solicit a final decision from the UN Secretary General).  The UN does not legitimately represent civil society and the private sector, and it is therefore inappropriate for its Secretary-General to wield such hierarchical authority over the IGF.  On this basis even the name "Advisory Group" is a misnomer; one reason why some have suggested that "multi-stakeholder bureau" would be more appropriate.

This is just one reason - apart from that of accountability, to be mentioned below - why defined procedures must be developed through the open consultation process by which for the Advisory Group to make decisions on the IGF's structure and processes (and perhaps in due course even on substantive issues such as the formalisation of recommendations upon which the plenary body has reached consensus).  It is likely that these procedures will involve deliberation and consensus, though there is no reason why voting could not be adopted as a fall-back mechanism given that the Advisory Group is a body of certain composition.

The third reform proposed above is that the Advisory Group must become more accountable and transparent.  Accountability largely means that there must be the means to ensure that the Advisory Group is faithfully executing its duty to the IGF.  Nomination of its members by the stakeholder groups will ensure this in part, in the same manner that regular democratic elections do for a nation state, but procedures should also be developed for the Advisory Group, through the open consultation process, to specify how it should treat the contributions of stakeholders and to demonstrate that it has taken them in to account.

As for transparency, although the Advisory Group has belatedly begun to publish summaries of its closed meetings, this still puts it far behind comparable bodies such as ICANN's GNSO and ALAC, as well as CGI.br, which publish full audio recordings of meetings.  From the IETF and RIRs amongst others, the Advisory Group should also adopt the practice of opening its mailing list to public scrutiny.  Finally, there is no reason why meetings of the Advisory Group should not be open to all observers.  Whilst this may initially cause governmental members some discomfort, the Advisory Group is not a traditional intergovernmental body and should not be structured like one.

These three sets of reforms - the composition of the Advisory Group from nominees of the stakeholder groups, its empowerment to make decisions on behalf of those stakeholders, and the improvement of its accountability and transparency, work hand in hand.  In my view, such reforms are key to the success not only of the Advisory Group but of the IGF as a whole if it is to survive as an institution of Internet governance.

The reforms to its method of appointment and its democratic accountability and transparency will ensure that the Advisory Group is perceived as legitimate, rather than being a high-level UN clique worthy only of the distrust of the Internet community.  The reforms to its decision-making procedures will also cement its legitimacy, as well as ensuring its effectiveness as an operating body.
5  Remote Participation / Remote Participation - Ideas / New IGF community site on: October 18, 2007, 03:26:24 AM
A new Web site for the IGF community has just been launched at http://igf-online.net/ by the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition (ODCD), a bottom-up multi-stakeholder working group of the IGF. 

The new site already hosts a number of useful resources including a community blog, wiki, calendar, chat and needs feeds, most of which were selected for their capacity to support multilingual usage.  It also features a specially-designed menu running along the top of most pages of the site, that links in external Web sites including the Secretariat's official Web site and that of the Rio hosts.

This new site for the Rio meeting and beyond supersedes last year's site (which, beset by hosting troubles, is currently inaccessible), and thanks to a sponsor's generosity now provides the IGF community with a dedicated server on which a large variety of online tools can be hosted without the limitations of a standard Web hosting service.

Members of the IGF community, including dynamic coalitions, are encouraged to begin using the new site now.  By registering (or logging in with your existing OpenID) you can begin posting on the community blog, adding events to the calendar, and entering information on the wiki.  Hosting of other content will be accommodated on request.

Volunteers are needed to help with translating the site's content into other languages, designing a complementary set of themes, and spreading the word.
6  IGF Rio de Janeiro Meeting / Comments on the agenda and programme / Omission of speed dialogues from Rio agenda on: September 02, 2007, 03:40:42 AM
This submission was sent to the Secretariat for inclusion in the synthesis paper for the 3 September 2007 open consultation meeting, but it was not included there nor uploaded to the IGF Web site, so I am reposting it here:

I am a post-graduate student at Murdoch University, Australia, pursuing doctoral research into the Internet Governance Forum, including its role, structure and processes.  I have already submitted a substantive contribution to the Rio IGF meeting based on excerpts from the final three chapters of my PhD thesis, which is available from the IGF's official Web site, and I also maintain a constructively-critical IGF commentary site at http://igfwatch.org/.

However for the purposes of this submission, I intend to restrict my focus to one particular issue; namely the loss of the proposed thematic speed dialogue sessions from the draft agenda of the Rio IGF meeting.  I would urge that their removal be reconsidered.

The IGF Secretariat's original proposal to hold speed dialogues in conjunction with each of the four main plenary sessions was both judicious and creative.  The suggestion was in effect an acknowledgment of the inherent limitations of the moderated panel format as used in Athens.  These limitations include:

  • it is not adequately inclusive, as very few have the opportunity to speak at all, and those who do tend to be those most comfortable in speaking to a large group;
  • the moderated format is quite an unnatural and confronting mode of communication for participants from many non-Western cultural backgrounds;
  • it tends to create a power imbalance between panelists and audience, that is at odds with the conceptual equality of all stakeholders within the forum; and
  • it does not provide an accurate feeling of the views of the whole group, as will be necessary if the IGF is to fulfill its mandate to generate recommendations.

In comparison, the speed dialogue process, which takes place in smaller groups, is much more conducive to natural conversation and consensus-building.  The key to the success of the speed dialogue process, and similar processes which have been developed by scholars of deliberative democracy, is that it is a process of deliberation among equals aiming to create a rational consensus.

Originally, the speed dialogue sessions were scheduled to take place prior to the corresponding plenary panel session.  It is suggested that, if they are reinstated, they should instead take place afterwards.  In that way, the panel session can provide participants with the factual and policy background that they will require to participate in the speed dialogue discussions in a more informed and effective way.

The face-to-face discussions should be supplemented by online speed dialogues, in which a "virtual" table group of similar size convenes in an Internet chat forum (such as an IRC channel), and with the assistance of a moderator, deliberates upon the same issues in much the same way as the face-to-face table groups.

It is also suggested that each table group taking part in the speed dialogues should, with the assistance of its moderator, endeavour to produce a statement in the form of a series of bullet points or the like, to which all participants are agreed. It does not matter that full consensus cannot be reached immediately; what is important is that stakeholders engage directly with each other with the aim of finding some new common ground.

These statements, including those from the virtual groups, would then be collected and synthesised by the moderators and the Secretariat to produce a summary of the views of the session as a whole.  In the event that the summary records areas of general consensus, this could in appropriate cases form the basis for a recommendation of the IGF, to be drafted and posted to the IGF's Web site for comment by all stakeholders before being formalised at the following plenary meeting.

The simple procedure described above demonstrates that it is incorrect to contend that the IGF cannot meet its mandate to produce policy recommendations simply because it does not have a defined membership.  If all stakeholders (both present in person and participating remotely) are given the opportunity to present and debate their perspectives using deliberative techniques such as the speed dialogue, there is no reason why they could not in appropriate cases develop a consensus view.

Even leaving aside the IGF's mandate to produce recommendations, the use of the speed dialogue procedure is also better adapted than the use of panel presentations alone to provide the IGF's plenary body with an open, equal and inclusive forum for pluralistic discussion in which the perspectives of all affected stakeholders can be debated and refined.

I therefore strongly encourage the new Advisory Group to reinstate the use of speed dialogues at the Rio meeting, in order to better equip the IGF to fulfill its mandate from the Tunis Agenda, and to meet the former Secretary-General's challenge to be creative in developing new structures and processes for the governance of the Internet.
7  Remote Participation / Remote Participation - Ideas / New #igf IRC channel for remote participation in IGF meetings and consultations on: January 13, 2007, 01:05:07 PM
The IGF now has a registered channel #igf on the freenode IRC network to provide a forum for group chat during IGF meetings and consultations, that is more scalable than that on the IGF Community site (http://igf2006.info).

For details on how to access the #igf channel on the Freenode IRC network, please see http://igf2006.info/wiki/RemoteParticipation.
8  Taking stock and the way forward / Taking stock and the way forward / Re: Taking Stock on: November 14, 2006, 12:43:25 PM
This response has also been submitted at http://info.intgovforum.org/Q2006v2.php:

WHAT WORKED WELL?

1. The translation service was excellent and truly a boon to the meeting.

2. Almost all substantive (but not procedural) issues were well covered.

3. The IGF Community Site at igf2006.info was very well received.

WHAT WORKED LESS WELL?

1. The meeting was structured as a conference, without the decision-making capacity needed for it to fulfil its express mandate to, inter alia, "Identify emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, make recommendations".

2. The activities of the Secretariat and Advisory Committee were greatly lacking in transparency, with important decisions being made without notice to stakeholders, let alone affording them the opportunity to participate in those decisions.

3. Lacking formal working groups, the IGF relies on "dynamic coalitions" to carry forward the task of generating practical outcomes, yet has no mechanism by which to receive the output of those coalitions, no guarantee that they were produced in an open and collaborative process, and no voice with which to ratify them.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN VIEW OF THE SECOND IGF MEETING?

My three principal suggestions concern the structure of the IGF and will be addressed under the next heading, but specifically relating to the format of the meeting in Rio I request:

* Fewer panelists in the main sessions.

* Consolidation of similar-themed workshops.

* Workshops and main sessions not to be held concurrently.

* A plenary session for discussion of procedural and organisational issues.

* Plenary sessions for discussion of the output of dynamic coalitions.

* Seat plenary sessions in table groups with time for small group discussion.

* More reliable Internet access.

* More affordable food.

* No proprietary formats for documents and Webcasts.

* The official, host country and community Web sites be combined.

* Publicity be given to the [email protected] mailing list.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS?

My three main suggestions are as follows:

1. The development of criteria by which dynamic coalitions can be recognised by (or affiliated to) the IGF.  Recognition would imply being able to host workshops in the future, to be listed on the IGF's Web site, and to put their output to a plenary session.  The criteria that such coalitions would be required to satisfy should include membership that is free and open to any interested member of any of the four stakeholder groups, open publication of its proceedings, and some form of procedurally democratic internal governance.  The criteria developed should eventually be ratified by a plenary session of the IGF, as per the next point.

2. In order for the IGF to be in a position to fulfil its mandate, it will be necessary for procedures to be developed within which for the output of dynamic coalitions recognised by the IGF to be received by the IGF in plenary session with a view to the development of consensus around them.  It is for this reason that I suggested in response to the preceding question about the next meeting, the use of table groups, and that plenary sessions be scheduled for discussion of the output of dynamic coalitions, as first steps towards the formation of a deliberative capacity for the IGF that would allow it to fulfil its mandate.

3. There has been no word of whether the Advisory Group appointed for the first meeting is to remain in place.  Any future appointment process should be conducted by a multi-stakeholder nominations committee making its recommendation to the Secretary-General.  The principles by which the nominations committee should recommend appointments would be the same as those used by the Secretary-General himself; for example geographical and gender diversity, save that these criteria would be made public as too would the list of nominees for appointment.  As a secondary issue, the operations of the Advisory Group should be made more transparent which includes (at a minimum) that it should make regular reports of its activities, or (preferably) that its mailing list archive should be made public.

DID THE SYNTHESIS PAPER ... MEET A REAL NEED?  SHOULD A SIMILAR PAPER BE PREPARED PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING?

It was well-prepared and unbiased, although sketchy in some areas - perhaps unavoidably.  However no reference was made to it, as far as I am aware,  by anyone during the meeting.  For all the difference it made, it could have been that nobody even read it, let alone read the individual contributions upon which it was based.

I think that it is still worthwhile to prepare something of that sort to assist those who do not have time to read all contributions in depth.  However, it should be explicitly used by session moderators as a starting point for discussion, and contributors to the documents referred to in the synthesis paper should be given preference in selection for panel membership.  Otherwise, there is no point to written contributions being made.
9  IGF Athens Theme Discussion / Access - Internet Connectivity: Policy and Cos / Re: Access is not limited to ISP & Bandwidth charges it also Includes Domain Cos on: November 02, 2006, 07:42:40 AM
An economist at the GigaNet conference did actually suggest that.  Who would mount such a suit, though?  Certainly not the US government.
10  Remote Participation / Remote Participation - Ideas / Re: Remote participation on: November 02, 2006, 07:27:22 AM
The "outcomes" are just going to be an official report about the main sessions, and the workshop reports if provided, and any submissions made.  Also, "dynamic coalitions" may form between people and groups who attended.

No, I don't think this is enough either, but I'm willing to cut the IGF a bit of slack during its first year.

Next question: the Secretariat won't do anything with the outcomes.  Although the IGF's mandate requires it to liaise with other organisations, there is no structure within which for that to happen either. Again, maybe next year.

Final question: this site was set up by the Secretariat, and igf2006.info was set up by me and by Kieren McCarthy, but is "endorsed" by the Secretariat, and currently hosted on its server.
11  IGF Athens Theme Discussion / Openness - Freedom of expression, free flow of information, ideas and knowledge / Re: The Cost of Domain Name ownership and ICANN - Registry current Negotion Incr on: October 31, 2006, 01:19:36 PM
We are actually in Athens not Geneva, but thanks.  Is there a particular workshop or main session that you think your concerns should be represented at?
12  IGF Athens Theme Discussion / Security - Creating trust and confidence through collaboration / Re: Is this the right place for proposals against spam? on: October 31, 2006, 01:17:04 PM
Find a workshop or main session in which you would like the proposal to be made, and I will make sure someone is at that session to pass it on for you.  Otherwise, email the workshop  or session convenor or moderator direct and make sure they raise it at the session.

We are still working on finding the best procedure, but those ideas are a start anyway.
13  Remote Participation / Remote Participation - Ideas / Re: Remote participation on: October 31, 2006, 01:15:06 PM
This is not too different from what is now in place.  Emails can be sent to [email protected], or [email protected] in the case of questions for panellists.  If you prefer for your comments to be archived, then blog them - as blogs will also be monitored and fed into discussions.  Make sure we know about your blog though - the easiest way is to ensure that is to write it at http://igf2006.info, otherwise send me or Kieren an email.
14  IGF Athens Theme Discussion / Openness - Freedom of expression, free flow of information, ideas and knowledge / Re: Control Of The Internet on: October 18, 2006, 02:25:29 PM
Mike,

I certainly hear you.  Like-minded members of civil society would warmly welcome your participation.  Unfortunately, the whole event is still a bit disorganised at the moment, but there are a number of ways you can have a say and participate even if you are not coming to Athens.  Most of these ways are facilitated by the IGF Community Site that Kieren McCarthy and I have put together at http://igf2006.info, including blogs, live chat, forums (supplementing this board, as the ability to create new topics is too limited here), polls and a wiki.

Please don't feel it isn't worth contributing just because nobody else seems to be interested.  I have a strong conviction that the IGF will be pivotal for the future of the Internet.  And I agree with you that the last thing we want to happen is to allow it to be dominated by governments or big business.
15  Remote Participation / Remote Participation - Ideas / Drupal site covers most bases, mailing list still needed on: October 18, 2006, 02:16:40 PM
Although the IGF Community Site at http://igf2006.info that Kieren and I have put together now covers most remote participation requirements, what is still lacking I think are mailing lists.  I have just requested Chengatai to create one for the IGF as a whole, but there will no doubt need to be subsidiary lists created in due course.
Pages: [1] 2
Valid XHTML 1.0! Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid CSS!