Replies to the Questionnaire
<< Start < Prev 28/40 Next > End >>

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


Affiliation: Latin American and Caribbean Plan of Action for the Information Society eLAC 2010

Name: Olga Cavalli

Responses:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
The Internet Governance forum has become a relevant space for debate about public policies and about the future of the Internet. Each meeting is a reference for the evolution of Internet and it has also been the inspiration of national and regional processes that are enhancing the local communities’ knowledge and building local and regional capacities

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
All stakeholders are able to debate on an equal footing and are also able to exchanging ideas of how to make Internet move towards the principles of the Tunis Agenda of the Information Society

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 had an exceptional role in becoming a space for deliberations and debate about public policies related with Internet Governance but there are some aspects that must be reinforced: government participation, civil society and private sector of developing countries. This has been difficult due to the lack of resources and also a low awareness about this process.

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 IGF has proved to be a very good and unique mechanism for enhancing the global discussion about public policy of Internet Governance with the vision of an Internet which is people cantered, development oriented an inclusive, as stated in the Tunis Agenda of the Information Society.

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
Although the IGF is coming to the end of its first mandate of five years, the Working Group on Internet Governance of the Latin America Regional Plan of Action for the Information Society eLAC 2010 would like to express its desire of the continuation of the IGF beyond its first mandate.
The continuation of the IGF will allow keeping this only open space for policy debate on Internet Governance that involves all interested stakeholders. The IGF could also propose different ways to the stakeholders in order to enhance Internet access especially in developing countries.

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
The follow up of the WSIS in the process of the IGF should be reinforced and also it could coordinate its actions with other initiatives post WSIS like GAID and DSF.

7. Do you have any other comments?
Like the IGF, this working group wants to support the enhancement of the existing multistakeholder participation systems in order to have a wider participation base for broad consensus and agreement of decisions and debates.?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=28?>

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