The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group 
mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in 
respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 3 - 9 September, 
2008. 


(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues, ? ?

I refer to our previous exchanges with regard to our next meeting. As you may recall, 
Agenda item 5 of the agenda we posted for the open consultations is entitled "Review of 
the 'desirability of the continuation of the Forum'" . The short annotations state that the 
Secretariat will make available a short paper as a basis for the discussion. ??

We have given it a shot. Please find attached an indicative timetable for this review 
process. The main point of the timetable is that the 'formal consultations with forum 
participants', as stipulated in the Tunis Agenda, will have to take place at the IGF meeting 
in 2009 in Egypt in order to allow for a timely decision by the General Assembly of the 
UN whether the IGF should be wound up or continued. This decision will need to be 
taken at the end of 2010. ?

This brings me back to the discussions we had on how to conduct this review process. 
Since our last exchanges I have taken up the matter with Valerie and discussed how to 
develop our concept further. Valerie quite rightly suggested putting the proposed external 
evaluation in a broader context. She also suggested opening up the external evaluation 
and include other interested partners.
 
We agreed that given the fact that the IGF marks a new departure in international 
governance models, the review process for the IGF needs to be similarly innovative and 
reflect its multistakeholder nature. In particular, it will be important that the review 
process is in line with the WSIS principles, that is it needs to be multilateral, multi-
stakeholder, democratic and transparent. It must also ensure that as wide a cross-section 
of views and perspectives are included. We therefore propose a three-pronged approach. 
This means in essence that the external evaluation would not replace the traditional IGF 
process, but match and complement what can be described as a self-evaluation. In 
addition, we thought that an internal evaluation by the UN itself would balance the 
external evaluation and should also be considered.
 
This would give us the following three phases (the first two of which would run in 
parallel and would inform the third phase): ??Self Evaluation by the stakeholders and 
participants of the IGF. The self-evaluation would take place through the traditional IGF 
working methods, including open consultations, with a call for contributions and 
synthesis papers prepared by the IGF Secretariat. ??External Evaluation by an 
independent body, of the operations of the IGF and how they are perceived by the wider 
community. This would be funded by voluntary contributions, either in cash or kind. An 
initial offer has been received from info Dev, which has rich experience in the monitoring 
and evaluation of ICT4D programmes, to commission an independent study. However, 
other co-financing or in-kind contributions to the external evaluation would also be 
welcome from other stakeholders. The external evaluation would start at the Third annual 
IGF in Hyderabad with on-site research, such as interviews with participants, for the 
evaluation process. ??The external evaluation and the self-evaluation would run in 
tandem, with the aim to complete both by June 2009. The external evaluation, and the 
contributions to the self-evaluation, will be posted on the IGF Web site for comments and 
review. ??Internal Evaluation by the UN itself. This review would be carried out at the 
discretion of the UN Secretary-General, depending on the availability of resources.
 
I hope that this broader concept will give comfort to those who had misgivings about any 
form of external evaluation. Valerie indicated that she will try to attend the consultations 
on 16 September to share her ideas with us.
 
We will try to integrate the above in the timetable note which I will circulate for further 
discussion. ??Best regards ?Markus ??

ATTACHMENT:

IGF Timetable

One of the major outcomes of the Tunis Phase of the World Summit on the Information 
Society (WSIS) was the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a new 
forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue. The IGF was given a provisional mandate of five 
years, subject to review.

Para 76 of the Tunis Agenda (TA) sets out the broad structure and timetable for this 
review:

TA-76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the 
continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, 
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN 
Membership in this regard.  


Proposed timetable for the review process

The ultimate decision on whether or not to renew the mandate of the IGF needs to be 
taken by the UN General Assembly, by the end of 2010, which is the fifth anniversary of 
the Tunis Phase of WSIS. If the mandate is not renewed, then the fifth IGF meeting, to 
be held in late 2010, would be the final one. If the mandate is renewed, then there would 
still be time to organize a sixth annual meeting of the IGF in late 2011.

Working backwards from this deadline of year-end 2010, a possible timetable for the 
review process is set out below:

?	16 September 2008: IGF consultations on proposed architecture and timetable 
for the review.
?	3-6 December 2008: Third annual IGF meeting, Hyderabad, India. 
?	January 2009 - September 2009: Start of broad-based consultations, with call 
for contributions on IGF Web site for review and comment. Three IGF open 
consultations in February, May and September.
?	November or December 2009: Fourth annual IGF meeting (Egypt):  'Formal 
consultations with Forum participants' on the future of the IGF. Outcome of 
consultations is transmitted to the UN Secretary-General.
?	March 2010: The UN Secretary-General submits his report on WSIS follow-up, 
including the IGF, and makes his recommendations to the UN membership on 
the future of the IGF.
?	May 2010: CSTD meeting reviews report of the UN Secretary-General and 
makes its recommendations on the future of the IGF to ECOSOC.
?	July 2010: ECOSOC reviews CSTD resolution and makes recommendations to 
the General Assembly..
?	November or December 2010: Fifth annual IGF meeting.
?	December 2010: UN General Assembly considers ECOSOC recommendations 
and renews or revokes mandate of the IGF, as appropriate. 




(Writer A)

Dear Markus

If it's still useful, I would like to volunteer to help with this workshop
?Multilingualism / Diversity?Lead: Patrik Fältström?Core team: Theresa Swinehart, 
Marco Obiso(ITU), Daniel Dardailler, Bill Graham

Regards to all, especially to new colleagues.


(Writer B)

Thank you for this, Markus.  Please see two comments below in place:

Dear colleagues, 
 
I refer to our previous exchanges with regard to our next meeting. As you may 
recall, Agenda item 5 of the agenda we posted for the open consultations is entitled 
"Review of the 'desirability of the continuation of the Forum'" . The short 
annotations state that the Secretariat will make available a short paper as a basis for 
the discussion. 

We have given it a shot. Please find attached an indicative timetable for this review 
process. The main point of the timetable is that the 'formal consultations with forum 
participants', as stipulated in the Tunis Agenda, will have to take place at the IGF 
meeting in 2009 in Egypt in order to allow for a timely decision by the General 
Assembly of the UN whether the IGF should be wound up or continued. This 
decision will need to be taken at the end of 2010. 

This brings me back to the discussions we had on how to conduct this review 
process. Since our last exchanges I have taken up the matter with Valerie and 
discussed how to develop our concept further. Valerie quite rightly suggested 
putting the proposed external evaluation in a broader context. She also suggested 
opening up the external evaluation and include other interested partners.
 
We agreed that given the fact that the IGF marks a new departure in international 
governance models, the review process for the IGF needs to be similarly innovative 
and reflect its multistakeholder nature. In particular, it will be important that the 
review process is in line with the WSIS principles, that is it needs to be multilateral, 
multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. It must also ensure that as wide a 
cross-section of views and perspectives are included. We therefore propose a three-
pronged approach. This means in essence that the external evaluation would not 
replace the traditional IGF process, but match and complement what can be 
described as a self-evaluation. In addition, we thought that an internal evaluation by 
the UN itself would balance the external evaluation and should also be considered.
 
This would give us the following three phases (the first two of which would run in 
parallel and would inform the third phase): 

Self Evaluation by the stakeholders and participants of the IGF. The self-evaluation 
would take place through the traditional IGF working methods, including open 
consultations, with a call for contributions and synthesis papers prepared by the 
IGF Secretariat. 

External Evaluation by an independent body, of the operations of the IGF and how 
they are perceived by the wider community. This would be funded by voluntary 
contributions, either in cash or kind. An initial offer has been received from info 
Dev, which has rich experience in the monitoring and evaluation of ICT4D 
programmes, to commission an independent study. However, other co-financing or 
in-kind contributions to the external evaluation would also be welcome from other 
stakeholders. The external evaluation would start at the Third annual IGF in 
Hyderabad with on-site research, such as interviews with participants, for the 
evaluation process.

I understand the points you made in the earlier discussion about the time constraints 
inherent in the text of the Tunis Agenda when viewed through the lens of the UN process, 
which requires that the product of any evaluation pass through the CSTD, the ECOSOC, 
the Secretary-General's office and attendant bureaucracy, in order to have any sort of 
outcome by 2010 -- a date that must be kept in order to either go ahead beyond 2011 or to 
wind IGF down.  At the same time I remain unconvinced that a quality evaluation of a 
five year process like the IGF can be started after 2 meetings (with interviews taking 
place during the 3rd) as I explained in detail in my note of August 1.  I truly believe the 
process needs to be set back at least 6 months, so that any substantive interviews are 
undertaken in Cairo.  Certainly some exploratory meetings could be undertaken in 
Hyderabad, but they should be in the nature of problem definition rather than data 
collection.


The external evaluation and the self-evaluation would run in tandem, with the aim 
to complete both by June 2009. The external evaluation, and the contributions to 
the self-evaluation, will be posted on the IGF Web site for comments and review. 

Internal Evaluation by the UN itself. This review would be carried out at the 
discretion of the UN Secretary-General, depending on the availability of resources.

Recognizing that if the UN itself decides to do an internal evaluation it will do so, I want 
to raise an early flag that I do not believe this should be done "inside the black box."  The 
evaluation proposal, the conduct of the evaluation and the formation of conclusions 
should all be done in an open, transparent manner, involving all stakeholders, consistent 
with the mandate for the IGF and all post-WSIS activities.  If it is done in that way, I 
would recommend that the UN associate itself and its resources with the proposed 
External Evaluation, to ensure that it is done well.  The UNSG's office would of course 
want to do its own analysis of the results and prepare its own recommendations once the 
final evaluation is done.  Taking this approach would create a greater comfort level for all 
stakeholders and participants, and no doubt produce a high-quality result.



(Writer C)

I understand the points you made in the earlier discussion about the time constraints 
inherent in the text of the Tunis Agenda when viewed through the lens of the UN 
process, which requires that the product of any evaluation pass through the CSTD, 
the ECOSOC, the Secretary-General's office and attendant bureaucracy, in order to 
have any sort of outcome by 2010 -- a date that must be kept in order to either go 
ahead beyond 2011 or to wind IGF down.  At the same time I remain unconvinced 
that a quality evaluation of a five year process like the IGF can be started after 2 
meetings (with interviews taking place during the 3rd) as I explained in detail in my 
note of August 1.  I truly believe the process needs to be set back at least 6 months, 
so that any substantive interviews are undertaken in Cairo.  Certainly some 
exploratory meetings could be undertaken in Hyderabad, but they should be in the 
nature of problem definition rather than data collection.


This is a very reasonable comment.


(Writer D)


Hi Writer B, I understand your concern but not the solution you propose. 
What practical difference would a delay of 6 months make?


(Writer B)

Fair question -- I think that in Hyderabad the people available for  
interview will have at most been through 2.x IGF meetings.  If one of  
the questions is about what are the impacts of IGF (and I believe it  
should be), then there really have only been 2 IGF meetings of the  
likely 5, and certainly only 2 possible periods for activity to  
develop that could show the value of IGF, or lack of activity.  Given  
that the first IGF, while successful, was experimental, and it is only  
after the 2nd that I see any evidence of dynamic coalitions or others  
trying to figure out how to turn the talk into action, I don't think  
an evaluation at this time would be fair to the IGF.  Add to that the  
fact that we are embarking on a radical change to the format for the  
3rd meeting, and it seems to me that a study done during that meeting  
would definitely be premature.  Adding at least 6 months, and  
preferably 12 months to the schedule, so you are evaluating on the  
basis of the outcomes of at least 3/5 of the meeting just seems more  
sensible.

Happy to discuss further anytime


(Writer E)

Dear Writers C, B, Markus and all,

I think I am neither the first nor the only MAG member to think it would be interesting if 
the workshop "Bottom-Up Policymaking in the Regional Internet Registries to address 
IPv4 depletion and IPv6 transition" were merged into the main workshop on 
arrangements for Internet governance. To be fair, I just grabbed semeone 
else's suggestion from the IGF website (please see 
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php) where it is shown as the only 
candidate for the merger. Anyay, I think it would be profitable if the debate on IG 
mechanisms were not held in merely abstract terms. In this sense, the analysis of Ipv4-
Ipv6 transition policy-making provides us a practical and up-to-date example of global, 
regional and national IG mechanisms at work that is not to be wasted. What is a surprise 
to me is that the same workshop seams to be engaged in negotiations to integrate the 
session on "IPv4 -IPv6 transition". This is not reflected in the IGF website, perhaps by 
mistake.

I started working with the aim of helping organize the main session on arrangements for 
IG as soon as Markus sent a message asking for volunteers, and kept the Secretariat 
informed of the advances in this regard at a very early stage. The vacation period in the 
northern hemisphere and some technical troubles with the MAG discussion list, however, 
may account for the delay in keeping the whole Group informed on the progress made. A 
message I had sent to the Group in this regard a week ore two in advance eventually 
reached the MAG one day before Writer B presented his merger proposal. I count on 
Markus' well proven competence and to clarify this, if necessary.

While the workshop "Enhanced Cooperation - What was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and 
what is its current status", co-sponsored by IT for Change and the Ministry of External 
Relations of Brazil, seems to a consensus between my proposal and the one presented by 
Writer B, I feel  obliged - as a member of both the MAG and  the core team invloved in 
the preparations of the main workshop - to safeguard the interests of some actors 
involved in these negotiations from the very beginning, namely:

Packet Clearing House, sponsor of "Bottom-Up Policymaking in the Regional Internet 
Registries to address IPv4 depletion and IPv6 transition" - my contact in the MAG was 
Writer C;
?
Internet Governance Project, sponsor of The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?; 
and
?
The US Department of State, which was invited by the Brazilian Government to appoint 
a speaker to the panel.


I hope we can be flexible enough to accommodate this.




(Writer B)

Dear Writers B, C, all:

I don't think we are very far apart.  We just need to start organizing so we can deal with 
concrete proposals for topics and speakers.  My thoughts on your points are in-line 
below:


I think I am neither the first nor the only MAG member to think it would be 
interesting if the workshop "Bottom-Up Policymaking in the Regional Internet 
Registries to address IPv4 depletion and IPv6 transition" were merged into the main 
workshop on arrangements for Internet governance. To be fair, I just 
grabbed semeone else's suggestion from the IGF website (please see 
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php) where it is shown as 
the only candidate for the merger. Anyay, I think it would be profitable if the 
debate on IG mechanisms were not held in merely abstract terms. In this sense, the 
analysis of Ipv4-Ipv6 transition policy-making provides us a practical and up-to-
date example of global, regional and national IG mechanisms at work that is not to 
be wasted. What is a surprise to me is that the same workshop seams to be engaged 
in negotiations to integrate the session on "IPv4 -IPv6 transition". This is not 
reflected in the IGF website, perhaps by mistake.

I understand there is a lot going on in the organization of the IPv4-IPv6 workshop, and 
agree not much of it is evident on the IGF site.  I expect we will hear more from them in 
Geneva on the 16th.  I think the "Bottom-Up Policy Making" concept as expressed in the 
proposal could be very relevant to the workshop we are collaborating on (Critical Internet 
Resources Pt 2).

I started working with the aim of helping organize the main session on 
arrangements for IG as soon as Markus sent a message asking for volunteers, and 
kept the Secretariat informed of the advances in this regard at a very early stage. 
The vacation period in the northern hemisphere and some technical troubles with 
the MAG discussion list, however, may account for the delay in keeping the whole 
Group informed on the progress made. A message I had sent to the Group in this 
regard a week ore two in advance eventually reached the MAG one day before 
Writer B presented his merger proposal. I count on Markus' well proven 
competence and to clarify this, if necessary.

I am very willing to collaborate with you and others, Writer E.  Markus had asked me 
some time before my message, and I agreed to coordinate.  I am happy to play that role, 
but it does not in my view give me any "decision making" power -- this has to be a 
collaborative, multistakeholder effort, and given the sometimes controversial nature of 
Critical Internet Resource discussions, should be done in a very transparent way, in my 
opinion.  It is good to see several people interested in helping -- it looks like a good 
cross-section now.

While the workshop "Enhanced cooperation - What was meant by the Tunis 
Agenda, and what is its current status", co-sponsored by IT for Change and the 
Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, seems to a consensus between my 
proposal and the one presented by Writer B, I feel  obliged - as a member of both 
the MAG and  the core team invloved in the preparations of the main workshop - to 
safeguard the interests of some actors involved in these negotiations from the very 
beginning, namely:
We share an interest in ensuring that the various actors' interests are both safeguarded and 
adequately represented, if they wish to merge their proposals into the main session 
workshop.  I have assumed from your earlier messages and from this that you have been 
in contact with IT For Change about the proposal to merge this workshop into the Main 
Session Workshop.  Can you please confirm that?  If not, I should immediately contact 
Parminder on this matter ot ensure that he is supportive.  My preliminary thought here is 
that the UN Secretary-General's relatively recent initiative to seek reports from a variety 
of actors concerning their "enhanced cooperation" with others might be a good starting 
point for this discussion.

Packet Clearing House, sponsor of "Bottom-Up Policymaking in the Regional 
Internet Registries to address IPv4 depletion and IPv6 transition" - my contact in 
the MAG was Writer C;

Already commented: good partner

Internet Governance Project, sponsor of The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, 
What?; and

I have received email from Dr. Milton Mueller stating clearly that he does *not* wish to 
merge this workshop into the main session.  Frankly, I have to agree with him that it is a 
separate topic.

The US Department of State, which was invited by the Brazilian Government to 
appoint a speaker to the panel.

I had heard about that proposal, and cannot see why it would not be inappropriate.  Our 
topic is quite clear:  Arrangements for Internet Governance: global and national/regional. 
 While I would prefer for reasons of logic that it be "Arrangements for Internet 
Governance: national, regional and global" I wouldn't make that a sticking point.  In any 
case, having a speaker from a national government would seem quite natural however it 
is phrased.

I hope we can be flexible enough to accommodate this.
Certainly -- I would also note that at the last MAG meeting one of our members 
highlighted the need to include an informational approach to the Main Session 
Workshop, and suggested looking to the CENTR workshop proposal "Around The World 
in 8 ccTLDs" (#38 in the list) as having some useful aspects.  We should explore that 
further face-to-face in Geneva, I believe

Looking forward to working with you to create an interesting and useful workshop


(Writer E)

Dear Writer B,
 
    Thanks for your quick and cooperative reaction. With regard to your question on my 
contacts wirh IT for Change, I assure you that Parminder agreed to the suggestion as I 
presented at the fist moment, and the same applies to Milton Muller/IGP, who seems to 
have changed his mind. By the way, both were also informed that the merger 
would happen in a voluntary basis.

    The intitation to the US DoS was made by the diplomatic channel.

"While I would prefer for reasons of logic that it be "Arrangements for Internet 
Governance: national, regional and global" I wouldn't make that a sticking point". - I am 
affraid I did not understand your point here. Why would national governments be less 
legitimate to debate this or any issue in a multi-stakeholder environement than non-
governmental intitutuins such as CENTR and Packet Clearing House?? Not only the 
DoS, but - of course - the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations is willing to 
participate, represented ether by Hadil or Everton.

    The initiative of the UNSG to consult relevant actors on enhanced cooperation belongs 
to the second part of the IT for change proposal "Enhanced Cooperation - What was 
meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is its current status" In the understanding that this 
and other ongoing efforts will be debated in view of Tunis Agenda paragraphs 69-71, I 
fully agree with your remark on substance.



(Writer B)

 
    Thanks for your quick and cooperative reaction. With regard to your question on 
my contacts wirh IT for Change, I assure you that Parminder agreed to the 
suggestion as I presented at the fist moment, and the same applies to Milton 
Muller/IGP, who seems to have changed his mind. By the way, both were 
also informed that the merger would happen in a voluntary basis.

I appreciate knowing that.  I am sure we will see and hear from your IT for Change and 
other colleagues in Geneva.

    The intitation to the US DoS was made by the diplomatic channel.

That is useful to know.  Were you able to reach any agreement with them as to what 
you'd like to talk about during the session?

"While I would prefer for reasons of logic that it be "Arrangements for Internet 
Governance: national, regional and global" I wouldn't make that a sticking point". - 
I am affraid I did not understand your point here. Why would national governments 
be less legitimate to debate this or any issue in a multi-stakeholder environement 
than non-governmental intitutuins such as CENTR and Packet Clearing 
House?? Not only the DoS, but - of course - the Brazilian Ministry of External 
Relations is willing to participate, represented ether by Hadil or Everton.

Sorry, Writer E, but you are reading much too much into my suggestion for the title.  I 
simply find it strange to clump together "national/regional" as a single category separate 
from "global".  My point was simply what I see as a logical progression from the smallest 
of the 3 units (national) then to the intermediate (regional) and finally to global (others 
might see it in reverse -- global to regional to national).  Please do not infer any comment 
on legitimacy on my part.  I apologize if my earlier text was unclear.

    The initiative of the UNSG to consult relevant actors on enhanced cooperation 
belongs to the second part of the IT for change proposal "Enhanced Cooperation - 
What was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is its current status" In the 
understanding that this and other ongoing efforts will be debated in view of Tunis 
Agenda paragraphs 69-71, I fully agree with your remark on substance.

Good to hear.  Thanks!



(Writer F)

?
Dear colleagues, ? ?I refer to our previous exchanges with regard to our next 
meeting. As you may recall, Agenda item 5 of the agenda we posted for the open 
consultations is entitled "Review of the 'desirability of the continuation of the 
Forum'" . The short annotations state that the Secretariat will make available a 
short paper as a basis for the discussion. ??We have given it a shot. Please find 
attached an indicative timetable for this review process. The main point of the 
timetable is that the 'formal consultations with forum participants', as stipulated in 
the Tunis Agenda, will have to take place at the IGF meeting in 2009 in Egypt in 
order to allow for a timely decision by the General Assembly of the UN whether 
the IGF should be wound up or continued. This decision will need to be taken at the 
end of 2010. ??
This brings me back to the discussions we had on how to conduct this review 
process. Since our last exchanges I have taken up the matter with Valerie and 
discussed how to develop our concept further. Valerie quite rightly suggested 
putting the proposed external evaluation in a broader context. She also suggested 
opening up the external evaluation and include other interested partners.
 
We agreed that given the fact that the IGF marks a new departure in international 
governance models, the review process for the IGF needs to be similarly innovative 
and reflect its multistakeholder nature. In particular, it will be important that the 
review process is in line with the WSIS principles, that is it needs to be multilateral, 
multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. It must also ensure that as wide a 
cross-section of views and perspectives are included. We therefore propose a three-
pronged approach. This means in essence that the external evaluation would not 
replace the traditional IGF process, but match and complement what can be 
described as a self-evaluation. In addition, we thought that an internal evaluation by 
the UN itself would balance the external evaluation and should also be considered.
 
This would give us the following three phases (the first two of which would run in 
parallel and would inform the third phase): ??Self Evaluation by the stakeholders 
and participants of the IGF. The self-evaluation would take place through the 
traditional IGF working methods, including open consultations, with a call for 
contributions and synthesis papers prepared by the IGF Secretariat. ??External 
Evaluation by an independent body, of the operations of the IGF and how they are 
perceived by the wider community. This would be funded by voluntary 
contributions, either in cash or kind. An initial offer has been received from info 
Dev, which has rich experience in the monitoring and evaluation of ICT4D 
programmes, to commission an independent study. However, other co-financing or 
in-kind contributions to the external evaluation would also be welcome from other 
stakeholders. The external evaluation would start at the Third annual IGF in 
Hyderabad with on-site research, such as interviews with participants, for the 
evaluation process.
 
I understand the points you made in the earlier discussion about the time constraints 
inherent in the text of the Tunis Agenda when viewed through the lens of the UN 
process, which requires that the product of any evaluation pass through the CSTD, 
the ECOSOC, the Secretary-General's office and attendant bureaucracy, in order to 
have any sort of outcome by 2010 -- a date that must be kept in order to either go 
ahead beyond 2011 or to wind IGF down.  At the same time I remain unconvinced 
that a quality evaluation of a five year process like the IGF can be started after 2 
meetings (with interviews taking place during the 3rd) as I explained in detail in my 
note of August 1.  I truly believe the process needs to be set back at least 6 months, 
so that any substantive interviews are undertaken in Cairo.  Certainly some 
exploratory meetings could be undertaken in Hyderabad, but they should be in the 
nature of problem definition rather than data collection.

I agree. If this review is to be worthwhile and truly reflect the development of the IGF 
then a minimum of 3 meetings need to have occurred. Writer B's suggested time set back 
seems eminently sensible to me. If that would really mean that a 2010 decision based on 
the results of the review could not be made, I would suggest that rather than trying to 
shape the review in order to have that decision made, we consider whether there is an 
alternative, such as extending the IGF mandate by 1 year.
 
I note also that the 'Internal Evaluation' by the UN itself may be the cause of some of the 
time constraints and a re-shaping of that may assist in a quality evaluation being 
completed in time for the 2010 deadline.
 
??The external evaluation and the self-evaluation would run in tandem, with the 
aim to complete both by June 2009. The external evaluation, and the contributions 
to the self-evaluation, will be posted on the IGF Web site for comments and review. 
??Internal Evaluation by the UN itself. This review would be carried out at the 
discretion of the UN Secretary-General, depending on the availability of resources.
 
Recognizing that if the UN itself decides to do an internal evaluation it will do so, I 
want to raise an early flag that I do not believe this should be done "inside the black 
box."  The evaluation proposal, the conduct of the evaluation and the formation of 
conclusions should all be done in an open, transparent manner, involving all 
stakeholders, consistent with the mandate for the IGF and all post-WSIS activities. 
 If it is done in that way, I would recommend that the UN associate itself and its 
resources with the proposed External Evaluation, to ensure that it is done well.  The 
UNSG's office would of course want to do its own analysis of the results and 
prepare its own recommendations once the final evaluation is done.  Taking this 
approach would create a greater comfort level for all stakeholders and participants, 
and no doubt produce a high-quality result.
 
I agree with Writer B. I would be very concerned to see an 'Internal Review' by the UN 
that wasn't entirely open and transparent. It would far more appropriate given the 
structure of the IGF for the external evaluation to be the source of assessment and 
analysis. And as I say above, having the UN asses and analyse the external review rather 
than conduct its own internal one would have a beneficial affect on the timing.
?


(Writer F)

Once again I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Writer B's analysis.?


(Writer G)

I do share Writer B's analysis and his further explanations.

In particular I think it is necessary to underline that whereas the IGF is 
a multistakeholder forum, and the infoDev evaluation is meant to be an 
expert assessment which will be made public before any decisions are made 
using it, the CSTD and esp. the "UN's own" are not necessarily 
equal-participation-among-stakeholders mechanisms.

The lack of access of other stakeholder groups to the analysis and the 
decision-making in them is equivalent to a dramatic loss of the, often 
asymmetric, high level of transparency achieved by some of our 
organizations and the IGF itself.

It would be lamentable and to lose that. Writer B's proposals go a long 
way in defense of the multi-stakeholder model's most successful progress.



(Writer H)

I am still not convinced that the proposed evaluation is the right path to
go to reach the conclusion that the existance of IGF should be prolonged for
another 5 years and the mandate should not be changed. I think these two
points we (at least I) expect from the SG as a proposal to the GA, thru CSTD
and ECOSOC.
Just think what will happen if evaluators will come with conclusion that IGF
should be extended 5 years and more, but it should become a decision making
body. How SG will use that type of conclusions? How we will defend existing
nature of IGF (which is basis of its success) in the SCTD? It may be
imposible and as a result member states will be split and decision on
extention of IGF in SCTD  and ECOSOC will not be made. This then will be the
beginning of the end of this useful Forum.
Sorry for being so straight forward, but I have seen battles in the SCTD. 
Sometimes is better to do less than more to get where you want. This is a
case, in my view.


(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,
 
Many thanks for your thoughtful reactions. While this discussion is very helpful, I still 
believe there are some lingering misunderstandings about the nature of the proposal. The 
main reason for the proposed timing is the fact that the SG's recommendations need to be 
ready within the UN system by early January 2010 before it can be cleared and submitted 
to Member States. For this very basic reason, any evaluation undertaken in 2009 could 
not be taken into account in this report, but presumably it could go as a separate input 
directly to the CSTD. This might be an option and would take into account Writer B's 
concerns which were shared by several colleagues.
 
I understand Writer H's concerns, but these institutional aspects would not be the focus of 
the external evaluation - this would best be left to the self evaluation. Having said this, I 
don't think it would be appropriate to question the mandate as set out by Heads of State 
and government in Tunis. In my view, the mandate is cast in stone. It is legitimate, 
however, to interpret parts of the mandate, as it is not always crystal clear what is meant.
 
Last but not least, a word about the proposed internal evaluation by the UN.  The UN has 
two offices who carry out this kind of task: the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and the Office 
of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). They both have a very good track record. They 
operate under tightly defined ToR defined by the GA which cannot be changed according 
to the programme under review. The suggestion to launch such an internal evaluation was 
received favourably by UNHQ. My colleagues in New York checked whether this would 
be feasible, but, unfortunately, the programme for 2009 is already fixed and therefore we 
have to drop this idea.
 


(Markus Kummer)

Dear Writer E, ?dear colleagues??
You have rightly noted that our Web site does not reflect a rapidly evolving situation. We 
are in the process of updating this and we will also send out a revised list of the main 
session workshop organizers, taking into account the comments received so far.??We 
set 12 September as a deadline for completing the programme for all workshops. While I 
expect that we will devote much of our time during our meeting on 17-18 September to 
this task, it would nevertheless be helpful to have a short note on each workshop 
according to the workshop template and a first list of speakers also for the main session 
workshop.??I hope the various leads will be able to provide us with the relevant 
information.



(Writer I)

Dear Markus,
I would like to to volunteer to assist this following workshop

> Arrangements for Internet governance ? global and national/regional
> Lead: Bill Graham
> Core team: Raùl Echeberria, Adiel Akplogan Bill Woodcock,
> Volunteers: José Vitor Hansem, Adam Peak



(Writer J)

Hi people, I am generally lurking here because of brutal workload. Let
me try to return little by little.

I am in favor of evaluation -- or evaluations. I understand the
importance of "official" evaluations (the ones being discussed), and
other assessments as well. Constituencies could very well agree to
produce assessments, and need nothing from us (MAG, secretariat) to do
them -- these could be excellent inputs for what we seem to want (do we
know what we want?).

As to the goals of the evaluations, I guess they should be treated as
any objective assessment -- to seek conclusions without constraints. I
do not think we need an evaluation to prove the IGF should continue. We
need it to enlighten scenarios. Should it continue as it is? Should it
become a different beast? Could/should it become something totally
independent of the UN formalities? Would it enable or help the creation
of other instances, even instances of decision? Should we just ritually
fulfill the Tunis mandate and go home afterwards? For these and several
other questions I would expect evaluations would provide clear answers.
Otherwise, what do we really need evaluations for?



(Writer K)

For your information - I think we can support this initiative at least by linking their URL 
to the IGF Secretariat website?

Regards

-------- Message original --------


Hello all!
 
In case you want to publicize the hubs in your contact lists, please use the latest version 
of the doc that gives details about the hubs (attached)
 
Thanks!
 
Marília

ATTACHMENT:

IGF Remote Participation Project

Presenting the hubs initiative
  
1) Objective: 
To develop partnerships with regional organizations and communities with the 
aim to create local IGF hubs. These hubs would be local meetings, which would 
exhibit the webcast of the IGF as well as hold panels and roundtables, to discuss 
the themes of the IGF from a local perspective. This forum should serve as a 
stimulus or a starting point for the debate of local issues and implications and for 
the development of a network of interested people.

2)  Some reasons that support the creation of hubs   
2.1. Increases the visibility of the meeting. The local press will more likely cover a 
local  event than one that takes place overseas. In addition to that, the 
engagement of civil society in organizing the hubs is a natural publicity and 
promotion that reaches all the  larger local and regional community gathered 
around it.  
2.2. Raises awareness. As a consequence of an increased visibility, the society 
in general becomes more aware of the importance of the subjects discussed at 
the IGF. The civil society plays an important role in getting in touch with possible 
stakeholders (NGO's, politicians, government representatives, economic sector, 
academics, etc) and convincing them of the importance of the subject and of their 
presence by being involved on the process.  
2.3. Favors commitment. When a person solitarily watches a broadcasted 
meeting he/she feels free to drop it anytime and may never be involved with the 
subject again. When he's on the company of others and discusses the subject 
with them a sense of commitment with the group may flourish.  
2.4. Favors community building. This sense of commitment can evolve into a 
structured relationship among stakeholders .  
2.5. Provides networking. People can identify common interests and establish 
different kinds of partnerships. The hubs fully accomplish the second reason 
appointed here for people to be engaged on this experience.  
2.6. Favors follow-up initiatives. People may feel motivated not only to follow the 
measures taken in the global sphere, but also to develop local actions. Through 
local discussion, people can agree on measures to take and share tasks and 
responsibility.This experience encourages collaboration and rises local initiatives. 
  
3) Support provided to the local hubs 
3.1) High quality webcast, with technical assistance
3.2) Publicity for the hub in the organization homepage, in the project homepage 
as well as in preparatory meetings and discussion forums 
 
4) What is necessary to create a local hub? 
The hubs can be held by any group of interested people. Each local group can 
propose and develop a methodology for the meeting, according to its needs. In 
general, the organization of the hubs does not demand high investments of time 
and resources. We suggest:
4.1) A four day activity (3-6 of December), on flexible hours (but the hubs are free 
to adjust this to their needs) 
4.2) A room or auditorium. It can be held at an university class or any other 
convenient place in the city 
4.3) a broadband Internet connection and a video-conference (or projector) 
equipment.
4.4) A server 
4.5) A moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the discussion 
4.6) A general call in lists, forums, etc, to invite the local community interested in 
Information Society and Internet Governance 
 
5) What are the modes of participation from the hub?
People attending the hubs will be able to benefit from the regular channels of 
participation:
5.1) Incorporated link for making an interactive recording of audio or video similar 
to "Youtube", "Seesmic" or "Quik", for broadcast in IGF sessions as comments or 
questions (In discussion with the IGF organization)
5.2) Chat, in the same terms of other regular participants
5.3) Open channel for discussions (fora) including theme-specific and moderated 
help forum for newcomers to the IGF
5.4) The IGF Secretariat will be asked to consider whether a channel of input can 
be included
for the remote hubs, such as a pre-recorded 2 minute video statement

6) Local groups that have expressed interest to organize hubs
India (Delhi and Mumbai) - Rajesh Aggarwal and Nikhil Aggarwal
US - Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology

Still examining the proposal:

Brazil – CGI (Internet Steering Committee)

Egypt - National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority - NTRA

Argentina - ISOC Chapter

US- Berkman Center (Harvard Law School)

For more information, please contact: mariliamaciel@gmail.com or 
gpaque@gmail.com


The Remote Participation Project:
Marília Maciel (Brazil) – Federal University of Santa Maria/DiploFoundation
Ginger Paque (Venezuela) – Member of the UN Association of Venezuela/Task 
Force on WSIS
Rafik Dammak (Tunisia) - DiploFoundation/Computer Engineer
Max Senges (USA) – Stanford Center for Internet and Society
Raquel Gatto (Brazil) – PUC São Paulo
Seiiti Arata (Brazil/Geneva) – DiploFoundation Community Facilitator
Rajesh Aggarwal (India) – IGF Hyderabad Organization
Nikhil Aggarwal (India) – IGF Hyderabad Organization




(Writer H)

Writer J,

This is exactly my point. IGF mandate was agreed as a result of elaborate
intergovernmental negotiationas and as an element of a package deal. It must
be evaluated in the context with other elements.
As far I understand, proposed evaluation will not cover all other elements.
Therefore, it will do something, out of context and links with other
elements of agreement.
The UNSG was given mandate to make examine the desirability of continuation
of the Forum, not its mandate. He was not ask evaluate but just assess the
desirability of continuation. Para 76 goes like follows:
76.	We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
Membership in this regard.

I think what is proposed course of action goes beyond what WSIS was
mandated.



(Writer L)

Dear Markus, Dear colleagues

Thank you, Markus for the additional information.
I share Writer H's concerns---an external evaluation could risk opening up areas even if 
that is not the intention, and am not convinced that an external evaluation is useful, 
though I am convinced that it is not required.

I share the concerns expressed by Writer B and other colleagues that review of the IGF 
should take into account atleast one more IGF experience. It is too early to start 
reviewing the IGF in Hyderabad.

Participants can share their experiences with what has worked at the IGF India, what 
could be improved upon etc, as has been done before, during the taking stock and way 
forward session in Hyderabad.The written contributions and open consultations starting 
on the 'review of the desirability of continuation', will provide sufficient input to be 
forwarded to the UN Secretary General. I think sufficient input can be gathered in a 
simple and effective manner through the written contributions and open consultations, 
and the session you mentioned in Cairo on this topic.

I am concerned that the real focus of the IGF in Hyderabad should be on the important 
opportunity to exchange using the new format, and the more focused sessions being 
planned, and beginning to review the IGF at this early stage in Hyderabad would be a 
distraction, let alone premature. 



(Markus Kummer)

Dear Writer K,
 
Many thanks for raising this point. We have been in touch with the people behind the hub 
initiative for some time and encouraged them to focus on these hubs as one of the more 
promising remote participation initiatives. They also posted a contribution on their 
initiative on our Web site. 
 


(Writer D)

Hi Writer B,

I have thought about the points you make and I have to confess they 
don't really convince me. Yes, the evidence will comprise only two 
meetings but these are two out of five meetings. By academic standards 
this seems not too bad.
And yes, we are again changing the structure this year and most likely, 
the structure will keep evolving for quite some. This is good as we are 
developing a new format of global communication. My guess is that the 
experimental state won't be finished in the coming years. This does not 
speak against an evaluation but any evaluation must take this fact into 
consideration, regardless of its timing.
A weak point of any evaluation at such an early stage concerns the 
impact of the IGf. You mention dynamic coalitions as an example of 
action that grows out of the IGF. Is this an impact?

I think we need to be modest in terms of the type of impact we can 
expect. Since the IGF is not a decision- making body, it has only 
indirect means to influence the world out there. The IGF is a space for 
discussion and networking. The impact beyond dynamic coalitions we see 
right now is a regionalization of its core concept. The UK IGF is an 
example, the activities of the European Commission is another. I know 
there is more going on in other regions. The IGF multiplies and we see 
some baby or mini IGFs emerging. I don't think we would come to 
significantly different results a year later.



(Writer E)

Dear Writer B,
 
I appreciate knowing that. I am sure we will see and hear from your IT for Change 
and other colleagues in Geneva. (...) That [the contacts with the US DoS] is useful 
to know.  Were you able to reach any agreement with them as to what you'd like to 
talk about during the session?
 
All the potential partners I talked to were consulted on their interest in participating 
in main workshop which could merge the three workshops I mentioned below (and, 
therefore, the issues raised by the respective proposals on the website), along witn other 
proposals that might volunteer to join. I have kept them informed on the evolution of the 
negotiations.
 
Sorry, Writer E, but you are reading much too much into my suggestion for the 
title.  I simply find it strange to clump together "national/regional" as a single 
category separate from "global".  My point was simply what I see as a logical 
progression from the smallest of the 3 units (national) then to the intermediate 
(regional) and finally to global (others might see it in reverse -- global to regional to 
national).  Please do not infer any comment on legitimacy on my part.  I apologize 
if my earlier text was unclear.
 
Nice to know. As your paragraph followed my bare mention to the interest of the US DoS 
in participating, I concluded (wiht some hesitation, as I pointed out) that your comment 
referred to them. By the way, I do not know of any suggestion, on their part, that the 
structure of the sessin should be different from the one you suggest. Is this the case? That 
is why your remarks sounded odd to me, sorry.
 


(Writer M)

Thank you Writer K for disseminating this information. Let me add a few points:

This remote participation initiative is done in true "internet spirit", in that it is: bottom-
up; needs-driven; implemented by volunteers; "creativity on the edges" and a modest but 
effective output. The idea is to provide a social context for the remote following of the  
IGF-sessions (reflecting the broadcasting of sport events in pubs or FunZones which has 
recently become popular, particularly during the African and European Soccer Cups and 
the Olympics). This will enable IGF-deliberations to be anchored to local discussions, be 
it university courses, national policy debates or simple awareness-building sessions.

A possible scenario for universities could be that students gather in a lecture room with 
the professor or a student introducing a theme, such as cyber security. The session from 
Hildelarabad would then be shown and questions subsequently asked. After the IGF-
session there would be a wrap-up discussion, relating the global debate to local problems 
and issues.

This would be a completely new and enriching dimension of the IGF- process.

Many thanks to Markus and Indian-organisers of the IGF for their support for this idea! 
Since most participants are Diplo Alumni, we have provided modest institutional support 
to the initiative's formative phase and I very much hope others will join us in promoting 
the idea and encouraging the establishment of more hubs.


(Writer N)

Dear Writers M, K and collegues,

The remote participation project is an excellent example of volunteer work towards 
enhancing participation specially from developing countries IGF interested attendees. 

I personally have engaged myself in trying to arrange a hub in Buenos Aires Argentina, I 
am doing that trhough the [EDITED] where I have the secretariat role.

My plans are also to promote the idea of participation among my students in different 
universities in order to bring young local people closer to the Internet Governance 
process.

Regards to all and a nice weekend!


(Writer O)


> Dear Markus
>
> If it's still useful, I would like to volunteer to help with this  
> workshop
>>
>>
>> _Multilingualism / Diversity_
>> Lead: Patrik Fältström
>> Core team: Theresa Swinehart, Marco Obiso(ITU), Daniel Dardailler,  
>> Bill Graham
>>
>
> Regards to all, especially to new colleagues.

Your help will be appreciated.




(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues, ??

Please find below the list of the teams preparing the main session workshops, taking into 
account your correction and including the volunteers who forwarded their names in the 
past few days. I hope that by now it reflects accurately the state of play and please let me 
know if there are other mistakes or if you want to have your name added to one of the 
teams. ??

We set 12 September as a deadline for completing the workshop forms. It would be good 
if we could, by the same date, have a concise formulation for the main session workshops 
and also a tentative list of panellists (questions 1 and 2 of the template for submitting 
workshop proposals).. ??

We picked up Writer L's suggestion and asked whether you would agree to invite all the 
people involved in planning the main session workshops to the MAG meeting or parts 
thereof. Several colleagues supported this suggestions while nobody spoke out against it. 
Can I take it that we have an agreement in this matter? If this is the case, then I would 
suggest devoting at least the morning of 17 September to discussing the main session 
workshops, so that the organizing teams will get the overall guidance from the MAG for 
finalizing the planning. Would this make sense? Please let me know should you disagree 
or have other ideas.??

Best regards?

Markus???

Access – Reaching the next Billion ?Lead: Karen Banks (APC) ?Core team: Willie 
Currie (APC), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), Ian Thomson (PICISOC), Sulakshana 
Bhattacharya (CSDMS), Abi Jagun ?Volunteers: Ayesha Hassan, Adam Peake, Peter 
Hellmonds, Bill Graham ??

Multilingualism / Diversity ?Lead: Patrik Fältström ?Core team: Theresa Swinehart, 
Daniel Dardailler, Bill Graham, Andrea Beccalli ?Volunteers: Ken Lohento, Y.J. Park 
??

Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? ?Lead: George Sadowsky ?Core team: 
Bertrand de La Chapelle, George Sadowsky, Marco Obiso (ITU), Alexander Seger 
(CoE), Marilyn Cade ?Volunteers: Zahid Jamil ??

Fostering security, privacy and openness ?Lead: Andrea Beccalli (UNESCO) ?Core 
team: Sophie Meudal-Leenders (CoE), Ralph Bendrath (TU Delft), Karen Banks (APC), 
John Carr (CHIS), Catherine Souyri (French National Commission for UNESCO) 
?Volunteers: Bertrand de La Chapelle, Colin Oliver, Zahid Jamil ??

Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 ?Lead: Adiel Akplogan ?Core team: Raùl Echeberria, 
Izumi Aizu, Bill Woodcock (PCH), Milton Mueller (IGP), Marco Obiso (ITU) 
?Volunteers: Jeanette Hofmann ??

Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional ?Lead: Bill 
Graham ?Core team: Raùl Echeberria, Adiel Akplogan, Bill Woodcock, Jose Vitor 
Hansem, Parminder Singh ?Volunteers: Adam Peake, Olga Cavalli, Emily Taylor, Y.J. 
Park , Chris Disspain


(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,??I am afraid, a first correction: Bill pointed out that Maye and Theresa 
had also volunteered to help him with the workshop on the arrangements for critical 
Internet resources.?

?Best regards
?Markus


(Writer B)

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Please find below the list of the teams preparing the main session  
> workshops, taking into account your correction and including the  
> volunteers who forwarded their names in the past few days. I hope  
> that by now it reflects accurately the state of play and please let  
> me know if there are other mistakes or if you want to have your name  
> added to one of the teams.
>
> We set 12 September as a deadline for completing the workshop forms.  
> It would be good if we could, by the same date, have a concise  
> formulation for the main session workshops and also a tentative list  
> of panellists (questions 1 and 2 of the template for submitting  
> workshop proposals)..
>
You are a hard task master!  Will try



(Writer Q)

I support Writer L's suggestion to invite people into the room who are involved in 
planning the main session workshops.  I think will be very useful.  I will be happy to 
attend a session on the 17th morning.



(Writer R)

I agree in opening the MAG meeting to workshop proponents and discuss the mail 
session workshops.
Another little correction: in a previous mail (attached) I was also part of the team on 
multilingualism, now not anymore.
Is there a specific reason? Maybe I did not pay attention to some mail correspondence on 
the topic?  Please advice.
 


(Writer S)

Dear Markus and Colleagues:
 
I support inviting the people involved in planning the main workshops too.



(Writer T)


I support the proposal to invite the main session organisers. 


(Writer O)

> Another little correction: in a previous mail (attached) I was also  
> part of the team on multilingualism, now not anymore.

I have you on the list of people helping and I hope you got my email  
messages I sent during previous weekend. If not, let me know. I.e. I  
have you on my list, so you can not run away :-) !!

I did though see on Markus list Writer U being listed, and I will resend  
data to you Writer U



(Markus Kummer)

Dear colleagues,

Based on your reactions I take it that we can go ahead with the plan to invite all people 
involved in the organization of main session workshops to attend the MAG meeting in 
the morning of 17 September.

In addition, the point was made that the 12 September deadline is too tight. We can 
extend this deadline until 14 September. We will also make it possible for you to upload 
your input directly should you miss this deadline. (We will give you more details later.)

Please find below an updated and corrected list. My apologies for leaving out volunteers - 
this was not our intention, on the contrary! We try to run an inclusive process.

Best regards
Markus

Access – Reaching the next Billion ?Lead: Karen Banks (APC) ?Core team: Willie 
Currie (APC), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), Ian Thomson (PICISOC), Sulakshana 
Bhattacharya (CSDMS), Abi Jagun ?Volunteers: Ayesha Hassan, Adam Peake, Peter 
Hellmonds, Bill Graham ??

Multilingualism / Diversity ?Lead: Patrik Fältström ?Core team: Theresa Swinehart, 
Daniel Dardailler, Bill Graham, Andrea Beccalli (UNESCO), Marco Obiso 
((ITU)?Volunteers: Ken Lohento, Y.J. Park ??

Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? ?Lead: George Sadowsky ?Core team: 
Bertrand de La Chapelle, George Sadowsky, Marco Obiso (ITU), Alexander Seger 
(CoE), Marilyn Cade ?Volunteers: Zahid Jamil ??

Fostering security, privacy and openness ?Lead: Andrea Beccalli (UNESCO) ?Core 
team: Sophie Meudal-Leenders (CoE), Ralph Bendrath (TU Delft), Karen Banks (APC), 
John Carr (CHIS), Catherine Souyri (French National Commission for UNESCO) 
?Volunteers: Bertrand de La Chapelle, Colin Oliver, Zahid Jamil ??

Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 ?Lead: Adiel Akplogan ?Core team: Raùl Echeberria, 
Izumi Aizu, Bill Woodcock (PCH), Milton Mueller (IGP), Marco Obiso (ITU) 
?Volunteers: Jeanette Hofmann ??

Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional ?Lead: Bill 
Graham ?Core team: Raùl Echeberria, Adiel Akplogan, Bill Woodcock, Jose Vitor 
Hansem, Parminder Singh ?Volunteers: Adam Peake, Olga Cavalli, Emily Taylor, Y.J. 
Park , Chris Disspain, Maye Diop, Theresa Swinehart


(Writer R)


Thanks a lot for the quick answer Writer O; I will try to not run away :)
I have received the mail of the mailing list, so I think I have received all relevant 
correspondence so far.

Thanks again for the support,