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

[Ginger Paque]

Hello all,
Wisdom and others, I don't think Ji, Flavio, or anyone else means that
remote, or online, participation is not a high priority. I don't want to
put words in anyone's mouth, but Flavio's point, with which Ji agreed, was
that perhaps remote participation is not something to be studied in a best
practice forum, because IG policy issues are topics for BPFs, and remote
participation is a resource and set of tools for implementation of policies
for inclusion, access, achieving the SDGs, etc.. Remote participation in
meetings is indispensable, and Flavio/Brazil, and the IGF team are almost
best practice forums for remote participation in and of themselves.
DiploFoundation, the Geneva GIP, the CoE, the ITU, and other organisations
offer working models as well.

I think we all need to keep RP as a priority for implementation, and high
on the agenda for workshop and meeting strategies, but I think we are
making constant headway in that regard. I'd like to see RP as a priority in
workshop design this year, for sure!

Cheers,
Ginger

Virginia Paque
DiploFoundation

*Upcoming courses: * Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education Diplomacy;
Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development Diplomacy;
Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=4c5460f299&e=bc0aff4eba>

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Israel Rosas Rosas <
israel.rosasr at presidencia.gob.mx> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170404/6685944a/attachment.htm>