Talk:Internet Governance Forum

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.

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/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksmith4204 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanation
This discussion is what I have previously sent to the mailing list for the IGF wiki group. Let me just re-post here as explanation: The HISTORY (as in the wiki) already talked a bit about the background of IGF, follow ups, formation and consultations. What we can do is add more information to what's in there and then discuss about the IGF Athens and RIO main sessions. How about changing the main section of this to HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM? This way, it's much clearer to add more information on follow ups, formation and consultations.

The reason I am saying this is because I got a bit lost with the many sections until I realized that most of the information are already in the wiki so what we can do is merely to add some information.

To let you know what I mean, I will write below the outline as seen in the wiki and then will insert what I proposed:

I. Structure and Function (as is written in the wiki) 1. MAG (as is written in the wiki) 2. Secretariat (as is written in the wiki) II History AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 1. WSIS follow up  2. formation 3. consultations 4. IGF Athens 5. IGF Rio 5.1 Main sessions 5.1.1 Opening ceremony 5.1.2 Critical Internet Resources 5.1.3 Access 5.1.4 Diversity 5.1.5 Openness 5.1.6 Security 5.1.7 Taking Stock and Moving Forward 5.1.8 Energy Issue and Closing 5.2 Stakeholders' Participation (NOTE: IN MASANGO'S BOOK/ARTICLE,HE SHOWED A GRAPH THERE AND SOME DETAILS OF PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPATION FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS) III Mandate and Outcome (as is written in the wiki) IV Activities at the IGF (as is written in the wiki) 1. Dynamic Coalitions (as is written in the wiki) 2. Workshops (as is written in the wiki) V Future IGF Meetings (as is written in the wiki)

In other words, what we just need to update is the History and Development part. Wouldn't that be much clearer to get going now? Adding the AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM seems to make sense now with incorporating some items from the draft and put that in just one section. Anyhow, this is just a suggestion. I was reading everything over and over again until it hit me with this. What I analyzed is just to work on the wiki outline and add some bits from the draft. I hope it is not too late.

Explanation
The additional information below can be of great significance in the formation of the IGF in relation to the Tunis 2005 Commitment and Agenda.

WSIS Follow Ups

The IGF is considered an important development of the World Summit on Information Technology (WSIS). This important outcome was reaffirmed by paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Tunis Commitment. Paragraph 37 states that “…goals can be accomplished through the involvement, cooperation and partnership of governments and other stakeholders, i.e. the private sector, civil society and international organizations, and that international cooperation and solidarity at all levels are indispensable if the fruits of the IGCBP) that allowed participants from different regions to benefit from valuable resources with the help of regional experts in IG. 4

The involvement of different stakeholders in the policy framework of the IGF is a re-affirmation of commitment as per paragraph 39 of the Tunis Commitment. In this particular context, there is a deep resolve to “…develop and implement an effective and sustainable response to the challenges and opportunities of building a truly global Information Society that benefits all our peoples.” 5 During the OECD Civil Society-Organized Labour Forum held last June 16, 2008, in Seoul, Korea, Ambassador David A. Gross of the US Department of State talked about the transformation of the Internet in the social lives of people. He believed that this transformation made an impact in the free flow of information that politically drives challenges. Ambassador Gross commented on the 2005 WSIS because of the powerful language used on paragraph 4 of the Tunis agenda that reiterated on openness.

Formation of the IGF

A multi-stakeholder’s approach was reiterated in the coordination of international activities for the IGF. This adaptation was set from paragraphs 29 to 35 of the Tunis agenda. These stakeholders were defined as coming from governments, the private technical and economic sector, civil society, intergovernmental organizations, and international organizations. In paragraph 32, the UN Secretary-General was commended for his efforts in establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).

Consultations

There were two rounds of consultations with regards to the convening of the first IGF:

[1] 16 – 17 of February 2006 – The first round of consultations was held in Geneva. The transcripts for the consultations can be directly found in these links:

February 16, 2006 -  	http://intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-1-0216.txt http://intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-1-021606pm.txt

February 17, 2006 -   http://intgovforum.org/contributions/UN-IGF-AM-2-17-06.txt http://intgovforum.org/contributions/UN-IGF-PM-2-17-06.txt

[2] 19 May 2006 – The second round of consultations was open to all stakeholders and was coordinated for the preparations of the inaugural IGF meeting. The meeting chairman was Nitin Desai is the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Adviser for Internet Governance. A summary of contributions can be found in this direct link: http://intgovforum.org/Summary%20of%20discussions.htm

The Second Meeting of the IGF

Consultations held in Geneva last May 23, 2007 were open to all stakeholders. This consultation was part of a cluster of related events of the WSIS that took place last 15-25 of May 2007. **** http://www.itu.int/wsis/follow-up/index.html An advisory group was also facilitated for the IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The IGF open Consultations held last 3 September 2007 was held in Geneva. Transcript can be found at http://www.intgovforum.org/IGF-03Sept07Consultation.txt


 * Please note that for this section on "consultations," the direct links were placed within the tags for the bot-generated references (and not the way it was placed in the "discussion" part). I also arranged the text previously placed within this heading so if you would notice, some text which were previously out of place, seems to be "in place" now. Just my opinion on this matter.

1	World Summit on the Information Society. [2005]. The Tunis Commitment [online]. Available from: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.html. [Accessed 16 July 2008]. 2	Ibid. 3	World Summit on the Information Society. [2005]. Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [online]. Available from: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf. [Accessed 16 July 2008]. 4	See the IG portal at www.diplomacy.edu/ig 5	The Tunis Commitment as available on http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.html. 6	Read further on the community blog of Diplo Foundation, specifically on OECD impressions: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/communityblog.asp

Explanation
I took out the "/br" tags after the end of each sentence in this section. This is the reason why there are no spaces in between the paragraphs. I took it out for easy reading. The paragraphs were condensed.

Explanation
First Paragraph: I have inserted a comma after "now referred to as the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group)," to end this fragment; a hyphen (-) after Nitin Desai, second sentence, just to enunciate Desai's role in the statement; and in the last sentence of the first paragraph, "May" was not capitalized so as this is a Proper Noun, it should be capitalized like the rest.

NOTE: All these corrections are based on the rules of punctuation and capitalization.

Second Paragraph: I added "at this link" before the sentence ends so the reader can be directed to the link.

NOTE: I still feel that there should be a short summary of this report instead of just linking it.

Third Paragraph: Before: Renewal of Membership of MAG The United Nations Office in Geneva, On August 22, 2008, renewed the membership of MAG to prepare for the Internet Governance Forum Meeting in Hyderabad, India. A total of 50 members, 17 among them new have been appointed, which represents 1/3 of its membership. Nitin Desai continues to be the Chairman for the Advisory Group. (Source: UN Department of Public Information, United Nations Office in Geneva. Accessed online at: http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument

Current: On August 22, 2008, the United Nations Office in Geneva renewed the membership of MAG to prepare for the Internet Governance Forum Meeting in Hyderabad, India. There were a total of 50 members, among them 17 new appointed members, which represents 1/3 of its membership. Nitin Desai continues to be the Chairman for the Advisory Group. (Source: UN Department of Public Information, United Nations Office in Geneva. Accessed online at: http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/417AFED5138FD8E5C12574AD002E6C13?OpenDocument

NOTE: The current edition is just to make the discussion continuous into one general entry. The idea is still there.

Explanation
Just on the last two sentences: There should be a period (.) instead of a after this sentence - "The Secretariat also hosts fellowships." This way, the proceeding sentence will make it as a separate sentence instead of another fragment.

Explanation
Just a quick note here: a punctuation precedes the closing quotation mark and not after. I added the "i" (italicized) tag to emphasize the text enclosed in quotation and then placed the comma before the closing quotation mark, instead of after. Again, just following the rules of punctuation.

Explanation
Before: The following activities take place at the IGF:

After: The following are the activities that take place during the IGF:

NOTE: There are examples proceeding the statement so the statement should be in a "presenting" manner instead of conveying "this is actually happening now." Adding the preposition "during" would mean that these activities are happening "while" and "throughout" the IGF. So it becomes generalized in some sense. Again, I am being technical.

Explanation
[A] Before: The most tangible results of the first IGF in Athens are a number of so-called Dynamic Coalitions

After: The most tangible result of the first IGF in Athens is the establishment of a number of so-called Dynamic Coalitions

Note: Just making the statement more generalized - eliminating the "-s" after "results" will be a generalized view that does not only mean that there is "one" result. The "result" can become "many results." It becomes "plural" in some sense without adding the "-s."

[B] Before: In 2007, IGF hosted a number of workshops which attracted great interest of the public. In particular, the theme of child protection was one of the topics that raised much participation.

After: In 2007, IGF hosted a number of workshops that attracted great interest with the public. In particular, the theme of child protection was one of the topics that increased the participant's engagement in the events. OR In particular, the theme of child protection was one of the topics that solicited wide participation. OR In particular, the theme of child protection was one of the topics that increased the participant's engagement in the events.

NOTE: I would suggest using "that" instead of "which" as "that" indicates more of what is being referred to. I would rather use "with" than "of" in reference to "the public." The verb "raised" can work well with "attention" so it might not work with "participation." If you want to use "participation," you can try using "solicited" or "engaged." Please see suggested changes in the paragraph above indicated "after." I also capitalized the "p" of "Programme" on the last sentence of this topic to make it uniform with the "Process" and "Programme" - "A revision of the Process and Programme of the Hyderabad meeting is available at http://www.intgovforum.org."

Explanation
Just a minor edit under "Emerging Issues" and "Innovation, Research and Development" - I added a semi-colon after "regimes" and inserted "and" before "etc."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustan108 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Rustan108 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Charity G. of Diplo Foundation

Explanation
For purposes of grammar, I have revised some sentences into active forms. There were misspelled words that I corrected and some missing conjunctions. I also added a few HTML tags (such as the italicized tag for the text enclosed in quotation marks and the break tags for the text placed as a list) to format the text- to make it much easier to connect the text into the sub-headings. The thought of the text is still there so no worry here as the corrections made are within the purposes of grammar. I just took the liberty of editing the main article right away. Please see below the corrections: ---§

The question of Internet Security is one of the most important debate in the Information Society. Internet is becoming an important communication and business tool, as such, that the question of security comes as a cross-cutting issue to be addressed in all its dimension. As indicated by Michael Harrop, Rapporteur SG 17 Q4, Communications Security Project in 2006, "without effective security, all systems and processes that rely on electronic communications are at risk and, as a consequence, large numbers of resources are now devoted to countering threats, protecting systems and recovering from successful attacks." The Rio de Janeiro Meeting mentioned that "...achieving the Internet’s full potential to support commercial and social relationships required an environment that promoted and ensured users' trust and confidence and provided a stable and secure platform."

Internet Security has been mentioned in the Substantive Agenda of the Rio de Janeiro Meeting. It was also present in the Agenda of the Athens Meeting. Even before the Athens Meeting, Internet Security was mentioned at the Tunis WSIS under "Building Confidence and Security in the Use of ICT's." At the coming Hyderabad Meeting in December 2008, two panels will again discuss questions related to Internet Security. This gives an idea on how important the question has been in each of the IGF meetings so far.

Internet Security issues can be folded under the following:

- secure telecommunication which deals most with the security of telecommunication infrastructure - cyber-security as Internet users deal with it in their daily operations and use of the Internet - identity theft - children pornography - hacking and other virus and cyber threats (scams, spams, etc.) - cyber-terrorism

Internet Security on the Athens Agenda

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is at the forefront of contributors to the field of Telecommunication Security. At the Athens meeting, ITU mentioned the major contributions made in this domain by International organizations. ITU took the necessary steps to set up a number of initiatives that were presented at the Athens meeting. It presented a telecommunication security guideline and set up the road map towards Internet Security. The question of security of telecommunication was somehow dominant at the Athens meeting.

ITU mentioned the difficulty of experts in the field. One of the difficulties mentioned was related to the question of standardisation - as many international organizations were developing domain initiatives at the same time.

As a follow-up activity of the WSIS Conference, a number of ITU study groups have been assigned tasks related to Internet Security. At the Athens Meeting, findings of these study groups were presented to address diverse Internet security questions such as:

- Telecommunication management - Protection against electromagnetic environment effects - Outside Plant and related indoor installations - Security, languages and telecommunication software - Mobile Telecommunications Networks

Internet Security on the Rio de Janeiro Agenda

At the Rio de Janeiro meeting, a whole session was dedicated to the question of Internet security, emphasizing the importance of this question nowadays, as well as the treats users are facing more and more in their daily operations over the Internet. Internet Security questions put on the agenda at Rio were related to:

- cybercrime - cyber-terrorism - protection of individuals and automatic processing of personal data - action against trafficking in human beings - protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse

The Rio de Janeiro meeting called for international cooperation and coordinated action to counter cybercrime because of its transnational dimension. Recommendations were forwarded towards the direction of responsibility of governments in order to raise awareness among Internet users and in the direction of ICANN because of the responsibility it has for the Domain Name System. It is required of ICANN since it accepts responsibility for controlling illegal online content for the protection of  children from Internet pornography.

Internet Security on the Hyderabad Agenda

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustan108 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 05 November 2008 (UTC)(UTC) Rustan108 (talk) 02:48, 05 November 2008 (UTC) Charity G. of Diplo Foundation

Explanation
Again, for purposes of grammar, I changed some forms of verbs into singular form based on the subject and verb agreement. Please see below specific questions pertaining to specific lines: --

"The multistakeholder approach WAS highlighted by many speakers and panelists during the Opening Session, including the message from the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, which was read by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, M. Sha Zukang."

EXPLANATION: Just that WERE was changed to WAS

"M. Ban Ki-Moon assured that it is not a UN goal to take over Internet Governance but the UN will offer an opportunity to bring people together, with the same interest, in a global reach. "

EXPLANATION: I linked the words "bring people together" to the first fragment of the sentence and made the words "with the same interest" into another fragment.

"M. Sha Zukang concludes that the IGF was a unique experience because “it brings together people who normally do not meet under the same roof.”  "

EXPLANATION: I added the "" tag before and after the text enclosed in quotation marks.

""Development" was a key discussion in the IGF-RIO, as the theme chosen for this meeting, including the breaking of digital divide, which becomes the theme for the next IGF: Internet for All."

EXPLANATION: I enclosed the word "development" in quotation marks as the sentence refers to it as a theme. I am a bit confused as "development" was a key discussion and the theme at the same time...is this what it means? Since it says "chosen for this meeting" but "this" pertains to "IGF RIO" or the incoming IGF Hyderabad? What do the rest of the words "including the breaking of digital divide, which becomes the theme for the next IGF: "Internet for All" pertain to - the IGF Hyderabad? If this is the case, please allow me to suggest this re-phrasing:

"Development" was a key discussion during the IGF Rio Meeting. It will still be an important aspect for discussion, together with the issue of bridging the digital divide - a key element of discussion for the IGF Hyderabad and reflects the theme of the IGF Hyderabad which is "Internet for All."

"The nature and prospective of the IGF were also discussed, as the Chairman properly summarizes : "“Several participants underlined that the IGF was not only a space for dialogue, but also a medium that should encourage fundamental change at the local level to empower communities, build capacity and skills enable the Internet`s expansion, thereby contributing to economic and social development.'"

NO CORRECTIONS/EXPLANATIONS HERE

Rustan108 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Explanation
Critical Internet Resources

This is a new session that was introduced during the IGF Rio Meeting. Basically, it covered some issues pertaining to the infrastructure of the Internet. ICANN discussions were not missed, as well as the role of governments in shaping policies.

Access

The issue of “access” is more on how to get the billion of users around the world to go online in the next years to come. Such initiatives to this cause are reminiscent of pilot projects in Africa wherein laptops were given to children under an open source software agreement.

Diversity

The issue of “diversity” calls for multilingualism in the Net. Such promotion on multilingualism would increase users whose main language is not English. In order to open the Net to a diverse population, international domain names (IDN) were added to facilitate the language needs of other users.

Openness

The strong support on closed software has not been favorable to some people. This is due to the fact that there were long-lasting agreements between governments and large software companies. Such actions were considered critical, as it binds different entities to proprietary or closed source technologies. Many believed that the shift from closed to open software can only happen with the full-scale participation of both the private and public sectors. As such, many people fear the turning of the Internet into a “private” network if there is much insistence on the use of closed technologies.

Talks on open standards, open architecture and open software are clear indicators of what the issue on openness is all about.

Read this literature entitled "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig to know more on "Openness on the Internet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustan108 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Security Issue

SECOND PARA: Cyber-security, in this case, focused heavily on child protection, particularly on child pornography. Participants gathered were called to seek ways to harmonize legislative agendas to counter-act such crimes. This was a call of legislation between countries that can work together in order to enforce laws that would protect children. As such that some laws are not applicable online, this call also promoted formulation of legislation that would be applicable in the online or virtual world.

Rustan108 (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Requires a criticism section
This article calls for a criticism section. I am happy to contribute, except that as a well-known critic of the IGF and the author of a book on that topic, my neutrality might be open to question.

Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think information on criticisms of the IGF would be a welcome addition to the article. I don't think that having criticisms added by the author of a book on the subject would be a problem as long as the material is "represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias" and is "attributable to a reliable, published source, and [does] not contain any original research". If possible, it would probably be best not to cite your own book as a source. And keep in mind WP:CSECTION, which says in part:
 * … sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. …, best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.
 * Another option might be to add the critical material to the Internet governance article, rather than to the article on the IGF. That would be a better alternative if the issues are about how the Internet is governed rather than focused specifically on the IGF. The Internet governance article already has a section on Globalization and governance controversy. That section could certainly be improved and has been tagged as "requires expansion" since January 2011. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet Governance Forum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://igf09.eg/homeeng.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102151904/http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/usg-invitation to http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/usg-invitation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601142230/http://igf.or.ke/ to http://igf.or.ke/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)