Replies to the Questionnaire
<< Start < Prev 15/40 Next > End >>

Comments on the Formal consultation with Forum participants In accordance with
Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society


Affiliation: Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation, Denmark

Name: Siv Jacobsen

Responses:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
The IGF has addressed it’s mandate as set out in the Tunis Agenda in a relevant and appropriate way. The IGF is able to gather participants from all different sectors and across the world in order to discuss a wide variety of issues relating to internet governance. We have been very content to be able to draw inspiration from such a large variety of stakeholders, but we would appreciate an even larger degree of participation from developing countries. We are looking forward to sharing our own knowledge and best practices next year.

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
As it says in the Geneva declaration of principles, “the Information Society is intrinsically global in nature and national efforts need to be supported by effective international and regional cooperation among governments, the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders”. We believe that the IGF is one of the most tangible and successful outcomes of the WSIS process, by facilitating this much needed multi-stakeholder cooperation in an informal setting.

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
The IGF is a great tool for policy development, and we have been pleased to note that several ideas and initiatives, developed during the IGF, have been taken up in other international fora. We would like to underline the importance of ensuring visibility when positive results of the IGF occur.

One of the more visible results of the IGF is the establishment of both regional and national IGFs, and as a direct result of the Danish participation in the IGF, it has been decided to copy the format and have our own national Danish IGF this fall.

4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
The Danish Ministry of Science is happy to take part in the open consultations, which we believe is a good platform for input on the substance and the process of the IGF. We would like to commend the IGF secretariat for the great work they achieve with the resources at hand.

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
Yes. We find that the IGF complements existing Internet Governance structures as it offers a platform to those who do not have the possibility otherwise to draw attention to their concerns or options for solutions. To us the IGF is a valuable tool for interaction with stakeholders, getting inspiration for policies relating to the internet, and for discussing issues we would otherwise not have talked about.

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
One of the great aspects of the IGF is that it continues to evolve, and a lot of improvements are already planned for Sharm El Sheik, for instance the introductory session on Internet Governance. However, certain aspects may still be improved:

- Reporting from workshops in writing
- Remote participation

7. Do you have any other comments?
-?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=15?>

Top of Page

 
Joomla Professional Work

Latest News

Popular

Copyright © 2005-2010 Internet Governance Forum. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Level A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0