Talk:Internet Governance Forum

The first sentence of this page is a prediction but not an encyclopedic content and should be changed.

Removed from article

From lede

It purports to bring together all stakeholders in the internet governance debate, whether they represent states, the private sector or civil society, on an equal basis and through an open and inclusive process.

why - purports is a weasel word Guroadrunner 09:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From organization/agf section

Its chairman Nitin Desai is the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser for WSIS, who has also chaired the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The task of the Group is to prepare the substantive Agenda and program of the Athens inaugural Meeting and to have an overall supervision over its activities.

why -- too complex to break down for simplification Guroadrunner 10:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From organization/ last paragraph

The aforementioned organizational structure of the IGF, which has been established in order to guarantee the successful organization of the annual meetings of the Forum and facilitate its working and functions, is not considered as static. Conversely, its nature and function is bound to change according to the experiences gained during the preparatory process for the Athens meeting.

why -- too complex to break down for simplification Guroadrunner 10:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed from article in whole: Analysis

Why -- fails Original research rules for Wikipedia. Guroadrunner 10:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Content below

=== Analysis ===

The establishment of the IGF is a direct outcome of the WSIS process, as it evolved from Geneva to Tunis, and in this sense it constitutes an important step towards the internationalization of internet governance. The IGF is a venue of dialogue which functions on a global level with the aim to co-ordinate international cooperation of all relevant stakeholders on an equal footing and through open, participatory and transparent procedures. The new entity may also be deemed as an attempt to bring to the forefront the public policy issues that arise in the internet governance debate.

The WSIS mandate is clear as to what the IGF is not. According to it, the Forum will not change the current status quo in the governance of the internet. This means that it will not alter existing governance mechanisms or interfere with day – to – day operations of the internet. What is not made clear in the mandate is the exact role of the IGF in the current regime and the outcome that should be expected from it. To some the IGF might prove to be the process, which through loose consensus of all involved players will elaborate on the definition and the scope of internet governance, further delineate its key issues and determine its principles, by issuing agendas, plans of action or even recommendations. In this respect, the IGF could be considered to continue the task of the WGIG, though by following a more enhanced model of participation and function. To others the Forum is simply a meeting point for stakeholders in the internet governance debate, which will improve coordination and understanding in day – to - day internet operations but which will not produce any tangible outcome.

Regardless of the above, IGF may prove to be a key institution in deepening the dialogue between the two colliding traditions in the shaping of the global internet policy; the decentralized and bottom – up policy – making tradition, which characterizes the internet community and its non – governmental organizations and which arose from the decentralized and participatory nature of the internet; and the more formal decision – making tradition of state governments and inter – governmental organizations.

Editing A Paragraph: Structure and Function

Explanation

There is this part under "structure and Function" that confuses me a bit. It says here (third paragraph):

"These organizational divisions should not be considered concrete, instead being malleable with future meetings, this means the organizations structures will continue to be changed and adjusted till they fit into the needs of the members."

Please do analyze the underlined words "instead being malleable with future meetings." I do wonder in what way the word "malleable" is used in this context. If you click on the "malleable" link, it would describe metals in general. Generally speaking, "malleable" means it can be easily deformed or shaped which is characteristic of metals. In other words, the "malleable" term here already presupposes that "it" can "be easily influenced." I feel the phrase "instead being malleable with future meetings" is redundant as the next fragment of sentence (this means the organizations structures will continue to be changed and adjusted till they fit into the needs of the members) would already explain what "malleable" is. Is it possible to take out the phrase "Instead of being malleable with future meetings?"

If you rephrase this entire sentence, it would come out like this:

These organizational divisions should not be considered concrete since the organizational structures will continue to be adjusted and to be changed until they fit into the needs of the members.

Note: These are my corrections (please see above underlined words):

[1] I added the phrase "since the organizational structure" (in the original text the word "organization" was with an "-s" so I am not sure if that was to mean "organization's" with an apostrophe and '-s") to connect the two fragment sentences after taking out "instead being malleable with future meetings."

[2] I also added the verb "to be" before "adjusted" just to be technical with the structure of the sentence - just to have both verbs in passive form.

[3] I also changed the word "till" into "until." Most linguists would believe that the word "till" is the abbreviation of "until," hence, it is quite informal to use. So I would suggest using "until" for formality's sake.

I would also like you to inform about some more about IT Governance and Compliance IT governance, risk and compliance (IT GRC) is about striking an appropriate balance between business reward and risk. The maturity of IT GRC practices for managing reward and risk has a direct impact on the organization. IT GRC encompasses the practices for delivering: Greater business value from IT strategy, investment and alignment, Significantly reduced business and financial risk from the use of IT, and Conformance with policies of the organization and its external legal and regulatory compliance mandates. IT GRC energizes the entire organization to imagine what it can achieve, establishes methods for achieving their objectives, and demonstrates the practices that are proven to work for minimizing business and financial risk. Fundamentally, IT GRC is about striking an appropriate balance between business reward and risk, enabling an organization to more effectively anticipate and manage business risk while more effectively delivering value for the organization. IT governance, risk, compliance, IT GRC, White paper, compliance survey report, 2008 compliance report. You can also get more information from http://www.compliancehome.com/symantec/