[IGFmaglist] ***SPAM*** Inclusive Government participation is more important thant Remote participation

[Israel Rosas Rosas]

Dear all,

Just as a friendly clarification: this year, the MAG includes 20 governmental members + former host countries + IGOs representatives. As a strong supporter of the multistakeholder model, I don’t find arguments to state that governments are being sidelined as minority in the MAG.

I’ll be back with comments about BPFs and WGs shortly.

All the best,
Israel

De: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] En nombre de ???
Enviado el: martes, 4 de abril de 2017 11:36 a. m.
Para: igfmaglist <igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Asunto: [IGFmaglist] ***SPAM*** Inclusive Government participation is more important thant Remote participation


Dear all,

         I am also of the view that remote participation is not a priority. At this stage, even UN members are not fully participating in the work of MAG, I doubt the value of encouraging more remote participation in our work by people from other sectors.Of course,it would be great to have more input from other sectors,but at the end of the day, it would be up to the governments to take actions and take up the financial burdens. We all know that It is easier to talk than to take actions. Multi-stakeholder participation is important, but I have an impression that  governments are being sidelined as minority in MAG. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we encourage more participation by permanent missions in Geneva,which would have more added values. Would it be great that we have at least one MAG member for each UN member state? I also feel that it would be appropriate for country like China and India have more MAG members befits their status as major internet country especially in economic sense.

         Best regards,

         JI Haojun


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170404/dcd6654e/attachment.htm>