Mail (will not be published) (required)
Stakeholder Group (required)
Regional Group (required)
Current [email protected] *
Leave this field empty
February 27, 2017 at 7:45 am
It is a good idea to charge the nominal amount from the participants or the associates who have an interest in sponsoring the event. This way the funding issue can be address and above all the surplus amount can be utilized to improve the event. The part of it can be spared for bringing awareness about IGF in the Internet users and the academic institutions like colleges and universities. There can be an option of online subscription by making online payment using credit card from those users like me who are interested to get subscribed and remain updated by paying nominal fee of subscription.
See in context
February 7, 2017 at 4:42 am
-Open Internet to everyone
January 6, 2017 at 9:18 am
I would think it appropriate to include here a more specific item on involvement of private sector, under the larger banner of responsible intermediaries/entities, that was mentioned in the framing section. Otherwise the recommendations oscillate predominantly between policy and technical communities.
January 6, 2017 at 9:01 am
Interesting idea and would like to read more, perhaps in the form of a specific best practice. Especially as it presents a tension with the assumed heterogeneity of multistakeholderism. While subject focus is important, it must also be balanced with the benefits of diverse views and experiences that influence outcomes.
January 6, 2017 at 8:39 am
I think Adam’s comment is well received. However, I’m not sure that it fits into the text here as it is rather specific. There are some more best practices that could be listed here, such as code audits or FLOSS development. Suffice to mention the importance of responsible intermediaries to put in place processes and mechanisms to facilitate coordination with and among those from all stakeholder groups with the knowledge and skill sets necessary to improve cybersecurity.
January 6, 2017 at 8:32 am
add “[sic]” as after some sourcing and re-reading I believe the sentence should read “… issues such as education…”
December 28, 2016 at 10:23 am
amended in final text: 5.1.1. Meetings and Events segmented in two parts: ‘at the local level’ and ‘at the regional, international and global level’
December 28, 2016 at 10:16 am
Indeed, par. 7 and 11 are out of place
December 28, 2016 at 9:53 am
case study added
December 28, 2016 at 9:21 am
Thank you Malcolm; amended text:
IXP business models vary depending on whether an IXP is for-profit or not-for-profit. In general, a for-profit IXP aims to be profitable and distributes this profit as a dividend, or equivalent payment, while not-for-profit IXPs exchange traffic without the intention of distributing profit, but with the intent to invest any surplus in the future development of the IXP.
Website content © Internet Governance Forum 2017. All rights reserved.
Enter the destination URL
Or link to existing content