[At-Large] R: R: IGF Germany

Fri May 20 10:51:44 UTC 2016

I agree with Roberto concerns. To contribute to this exchange, I inform us
that in DR Congo, we are able to implement the national IGF respecting
Articles 72 and 73 of the Tunis Agenda

So we have an executive secretariat, a national MAG where the government,
private sector, universities, the technical community, some international
organizations are members. We have set a ceiling of 30 members but we
formed a 60-member database while taking account of the 26 provinces of the
DRC.

However, such a multi-stakeholder consultation framework can operate
credibly if the official guardianship authority did not endorse. Thus  IGF
DRC has been endorsed by the Ministry in charge of ICT while recognizing
the autonomy of this platform.

Officially, we exist, but to raise funds for DRC IGF activities from local
donors, and for opening a bank account, he was required us the legal
character of this national platform. Following discussions between the
actors involved in this process, it was requested to the ministry to make a
ministerial order.

The IGF DRC retains its independent multi-stakeholder character with a
legal identity that allows us to conduct our activities at national level.

*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*

*SECRETAIRE EXECUTIF FGI-IGF RDC*

*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member*
*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr

2016-05-19 21:08 GMT+01:00 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>:

> Alejandro,
>
> Maybe I did not make myself clear. I never advocated the **urge** to
> establish multi-stakeholder structures at the national level. However,
> since I recognize that there are attempts to “establish multi-stakeholder
> structures at the national level”, I would like to know what those
> initiatives are.
>
> Also, I am with you when you claim, if I have understood correctly your
> line of thought, that it is not true that one size fits all. What I am
> looking for is to collect information about the different ways in which
> different geopolitical and social environments tackle this issue –
> including the “we don’t care” or “we do nothing” approaches, that are
> perfectly legitimate.
>
> IMHO, the collection of this information goes exactly in the opposite
> direction of blindly endorsing Brazil’s CGI model as a universal model: it
> is just an attempt to understand what is already happening.
>
> Cheers,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Da:* Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx]
> *Inviato:* domenica 15 maggio 2016 21:18
> *A:* Roberto Gaetano; Seun Ojedeji
> *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide
> *Oggetto:* RE: [At-Large] R: IGF Germany
>
>
>
> Roberto,
>
>
>
> in many countries it is desirable to postpone the urge to "establish
> multi-stakeholder structures at the national level." They may create
> capture targets with no benefit in exchange if done prematurely.
>
>
>
> That is the case in several Latin American countries where we have loosely
> organized working groups, and meetings we have chosen to call "Dialogues on
> Internet Governance", avoiding any premature crystallization and even the
> word "Forum." To the best of my understanding we started this trend in
> Mexico and it has had echo in Argentina.
>
>
>
> Fadi Chehade for a time tried to convince many, especially in governments,
> to emulate Brazil's CGI. The model may work well in Brazil, due to local
> circumstances and history (Vanda will tell us more - it was started by her
> in a visionary way in the Cardoso government period) but other countries
> have very different circumstances.
>
>
>
> In particular if many of the IG problems are being solved by relevant
> stakeholders on a heuristic basis, the more commprehensive structure may
> actually cause a wreck. Among other reasons: attempts to capture (by
> government or others), a scramble for budget and seats, lack of balance,
> lack of access to the actually relevant actors - briefly, an example: an
> ISP may or an NGO may need to send very different representatives to a
> meeting on spma than to a meeting on "right to be forgotten."
>
>
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
>
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> ------------------------------
>
> *Desde:* at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [
> at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Roberto Gaetano [
> roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com]
> *Enviado el:* domingo, 15 de mayo de 2016 11:15
> *Hasta:* Seun Ojedeji
> *CC:* At-Large Worldwide
> *Asunto:* [At-Large] R: IGF Germany
>
> Thanks, Seun, this is an excellent start, I will also have a look at the
> 2015 reports.
>
> I would also be interested in whether some analysis has been made to
> compare the local initiatives – I am sure that every country approaches
> this issue in a different way.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roberto
>
>
>
> *Da:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
>
> *Inviato:* domenica 15 maggio 2016 17:27
> *A:* Roberto Gaetano
> *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide
> *Oggetto:* Re: [At-Large] IGF Germany
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The URL below has references to national and regional IGFs:
>
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/77-igf-regional-events/igf-regional-and-national/3026-list-of-national-and-regional-igf-initiatives-2016
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 15 May 2016 4:14 p.m., "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I have sent a specific message on this subject to the EURALO list, but I
> am realizing that what I am looking for is not limited to Europe, so I am
> replicating this to the global list.
>
>
>
> I am particularly interested in efforts to establish multi-stakeholder
> structures at the national level.
>
> I understand that in Germany there is an ongoing effort to build this type
> of initiative.
>
> Is this correct? How can I get more information?
>
> Generally speaking, would it be a good idea to share the information that
> we have from different countries?
>
> Maybe there are some ALSes that work locally on this subject, and it would
> be good to know more about it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roberto
>
>
>
> PS: I know that our Armenian ALSes are active on this, and I am already in
> contact with them
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160520/73004654/attachment-0001.html>