<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font size="+1">Dear all<br>
<br>
<font size="+1">I have been traveling and am in another meeting
(in M<font size="+1">ex<font size="+1">ico City) so have not had
time to follow up.<font size="+1"> Let me try to e<font
size="+1">xplain the back<font size="+1">ground<font
size="+1"> to my comments in the<font size="+1"><font
size="+1"> MAG meeting.</font></font></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1">The proposal to <font size="+1">finalise
the t<font size="+1">heme <font size="+1">based
on <font size="+1">interest and proposals
from the IGF community is not new.<font
size="+1"> Proposals to d<font size="+1">elay
deciding the final theme until after
workshop proposals have been received
was made<font size="+1"> and </font>discussed
at the MAG meeting in 2012. I<font
size="+1">t was<font size="+1"> also
raised and discussed <font
size="+1">on the MAG list<font
size="+1"> in February 2013
before we convened in Paris for
the MAG meeting. Positions
varied, with some people
supporting the idea, and others
not. Some<font size="+1">
proposed a combination
approach.<br>
<br>
</font></font></font></font><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1">My
proposal was that we start
with general policy questions
based on OC input and then
wait for workshop prop<font
size="+1">osals before
finalising the </font>overall
'theme'. My reasons<font
size="+1">:</font> <br>
<br>
<font size="+1">a) The<font
size="+1"> </font>recommendation
of the CSTD WG on IGF
improvements is to build the
IGF around policy questions.
The idea is that we frame
the IGF based on these
policy questions identified
at the<font size="+1">
beginning of the process.
This is more or less what
we did at last week's MAG
meeting. He<font size="+1">re
is the relevant text
from the report:<br>
<font size="+1">"The IGF
Secretariat and the
MAG should reach out
and continue to invite
all<br>
stakeholders to be
more actively involved
in the preparation of
the IGF, including by<br>
identifying pertinent
key policy questions
around which main
sessions for the IGF<br>
will be structured. In
order to enhance the
bottom-up process and
to facilitate the<br>
identification of key
policy questions, the
Secretariat could also
issue the call for<br>
workshop proposals
before the first open
consultation."</font><br>
</font></font></font><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><br>
<font size="+1">b) <font
size="+1">M<font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">u<font
size="+1">ch
time is wasted
by </font></font><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">MAG
members trying
to synthe<font
size="+1">s<font
size="+1">ise
an overall
theme and main
themes. The
format of MAG
meetings <font
size="+1">does
not lend
itself to
finalising
themes, or any
other kin<font
size="+1">d of
<font
size="+1">'text
editing'. In
the process <font
size="+1">I h<font
size="+1">ave
seen three<font
size="+1">
disappointing
trends time
and time again
(I have
observed at
MAG meetings
prior to my
appointment
last year<font
size="+1">): <font
size="+1">(1)
the discuss<font
size="+1">ion
stops focusing
on the inputs
received from
the IGF
community (2)
new themes are
put on the
table<font
size="+1"> (3)
<font
size="+1">the
<font
size="+1">decision
becomes
politicised
and even more
time is wasted<font
size="+1">,
with the in<font
size="+1">evitable
resolution
being to come
up with a very
<font
size="+1">vacuous
'content<font
size="+1">less'
theme.<br>
<br>
<font
size="+1">In
this process
the excellent
<font
size="+1">ideas
that came up
during the OC,
<font
size="+1">and
in <font
size="+1">written
submissions, </font></font>and
during the MAG
meeting, is
lost.<br>
<br>
<font
size="+1">In
2012 1.5 days
were s<font
size="+1">pent
debating the
overall theme.<br>
<br>
<font
size="+1">You
just have to
look at the
overall themes
to see <font
size="+1">how<font
size="+1"> <font
size="+1">general
they usually
are, and how
little real
relationship
they have with
the content of
the workshops.<br>
<br>
<font
size="+1">As
for finalising
the 'main
themes'. We
had some
consensus
themes, but
they were bein<font
size="+1">g
diffused <font
size="+1">as
the discussion
was continuing
and p<font
size="+1">eople
tried to 'tidy<font
size="+1">'
them up by
combining
them.<font
size="+1"> The
secretariat
was battling
to <font
size="+1">make
accurate notes
of the inputs.<font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"> </font></font></font>If
we had broken
into smaller
groups we
probably could
have come up
with the
policy ques<font
size="+1">tions
<font
size="+1">around
which we can
build main
themes, but we
did not, and I
felt that
keeping the <font
size="+1">full
list received<font
size="+1">
from the IGF
comm<font
size="+1">unity
was a better
option than
continuing to
find final
agreement<font
size="+1">. <br>
<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>c)
In general I
feel that the
primary role
of the MAG is
to process <font
size="+1">inputs
from the IGF
community.
Synthesising
an overall
theme based on
actual
workshop
proposals is
quite a good
way of doing
this in my
view. And it
is easier for
a MAG
discussion, or
a political <font
size="+1">debate<font
size="+1"> to
be grounded by<font
size="+1"> <font
size="+1">workshop
proposals tha<font
size="+1">n
inputs <font
size="+1">made
during an OC
process<font
size="+1">. I
had also
suggest<font
size="+1">ed
that workshop
proposers
should be
asked what
policy
questions they
are
addressing. </font><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"></font></font><br>
<br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">As
for the
outcome of the
MAG meeting on
1 March.<font
size="+1"> The
report is not
terribly
detailed, and
I think MAG
members<font
size="+1"> </font>
should help
the
secretariat to
clarify next
steps.<font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"></font></font></font><br>
<br>
<font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">Nevertheless,
my
understanding
is that th<font
size="+1">e
'key-words'<font
size="+1">
listed b<font
size="+1">e<font
size="+1">low
</font></font>will
be used in the
call for
workshop prop<font
size="+1">osal<font
size="+1">s. </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">Your
point about
the SG's call
is taken
Parminder. I
think we
should clarify<font
size="+1"> the
list in the
MAG report
(copied
below), and
try to <font
size="+1">get
as close to a
few c<font
size="+1">ore
policy
questions as
we can prior
to the call
going out.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
I think having
this list is
better than
having an
overall theme
(and we were
heading that
way) which is
so general
that it says<font
size="+1">
nothing at
all. <font
size="+1">I do
think we can
come up with
good main
theme
questions
quite easily.<font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">
There was
strong support
for '<font
size="+1">internet
governance
principles',<font
size="+1"> '<font
size="+1">human
<font
size="+1">rights'
and
'cooperation<font
size="+1"> -
mu<font
size="+1">lti-stakeholder
processes
etc.'. This is
quite an odd
mi<font
size="+1">x <font
size="+1">of
issues<font
size="+1">..
and does need<font
size="+1">
clustering. <font
size="+1"></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font><br>
<font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">
<meta
http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE"
content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Science
and Technology (In Internet) for Development</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Human
Rights</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Internet
Principles</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Enhanced
Cooperation</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Multi-stakeholder
Principles an Practices</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Internet
as an Engine for Growth and Advancement</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Enhancing
Multi-stakeholder collaboration for growth, development and
human
rights. (Social and Economic Growth)</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Spam</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-Cyber-security</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Internet Cooperation</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Building Bridges</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Enhanced Cooperation</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Transforming Internet to Equinet</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
How to achieve an equal multi-stakeholder model</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Youth (internet for kids, child safety, etc.)</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Cooperation for growth, development, and human rights, best
practices
for sustainable knowledge societies. </font>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Internet Exchange Points</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Cyber-crime</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">-
Public Access<br>
</font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif"><big><br>
I hope this helps clarify my inputs during the meeting. I will
respond to Norbert's 'integrity' points in another message.<br>
</big></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif"><big>Best regards<br>
</big></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm" lang="en-US"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif"><big>Anriette</big><br>
<br>
</font></p>
<font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">
<title></title>
<meta
name="GENERATOR"
content="LibreOffice
3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; direction: ltr; color: #000000 }
P.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-US }
P.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt }
P.ctl { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt }
-->
</style></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/03/2013 05:05, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51340F62.7080001@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
Also important in this regard is that the UN Secretary General is
expected to give a call for beginning to prepare for the next IGF
before MAG meets in May, and this call has always (as far as I
remember) included the overall theme of the next IGF. Which means
that perhaps UN SG will simply pick up the theme suggested by the
host country or something like that; whereby the MAG, and through
it the larger community, may have effectively excluded itself from
this very important part of IGF preparation and program. Pl
correct me if I am wrong.
<br>
.. parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Monday 04 March 2013 03:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">William Drake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch"><william.drake@uzh.ch></a>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">On the topic of choosing the overall
theme for the Bali IGF, a
<br>
somewhat unpleasant surprise was sprung on us in the form of
Markus
<br>
starting the discussion of this topic by asking whether or
not to
<br>
leave this choice open until after the workshop proposals
have come
<br>
in.
<br>
</blockquote>
Sorry you felt unpleasantly surprised, but this was proposed
by
<br>
APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support.
<br>
</blockquote>
Since this was not suggested in either APC's written
contribution nor
<br>
in IGC's written contribution, I'm assuming that "this was
proposed by
<br>
APC/IGC members and enjoyed broad support" refers to a
MAG-internal
<br>
process".
<br>
<br>
So in the MAG internally there is broad support for the idea of
not
<br>
choosing an overall IGF theme until the workshop proposals have
come in,
<br>
but at the same time those outside the MAG are asked to make
written
<br>
contributions with "suggestions on themes" being part of what is
being
<br>
explicitly asked for, and "Discussions on the possible main
theme and
<br>
sub-themes of IGF 2013" was a main agenda item for the open
<br>
consultations ???
<br>
<br>
Nota bene, there was no agenda item like "Discuss whether the
choice
<br>
of main theme should be left often until after the workshop
proposals
<br>
have been received".
<br>
<br>
In comparison to the other integrity related concerns that I
raised,
<br>
this is a very minor point, but I still think that it is one
that
<br>
should not be simply glossed over.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">In trying to put in this way a bit of
emphasis on aspects of
<br>
integrity, I felt rather alone; it felt like during these
<br>
consultations, points on the need for integrity were not
getting
<br>
support from anyone else.
<br>
</blockquote>
Here I really don't know what you mean. There was two days of
robust
<br>
participation by many people who I believe favor integrity,
including
<br>
your CS colleagues. In what sense were you a lonely voice in
the
<br>
wilderness for integrity?
<br>
<br>
Just wondering,
<br>
</blockquote>
The relatively major integrity related points that I raised
were:
<br>
<br>
(1) The theme for the 2012 IGF was wonderfully wordsmithed, but
it did
<br>
not match the actual substantive content of that IGF meeting
(that is
<br>
the context in which I explicitly used the word "integrity").
<br>
<br>
(2) The "Effective Participation of All Stakeholders in Internet
<br>
Governance" overall subtheme suggestion from IGC.
<br>
<br>
(3) "And I would like to note that there is a very strong
tradition at
<br>
the IGF, especially in recent years, of emphasizing human
rights, and
<br>
it would be very valuable to take that forward in a more
<br>
outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented way, moving it from
the
<br>
'talking about it' to the 'actually getting it done' stage, and
I would
<br>
very much appreciate if the program for the IGF specifically
encourages
<br>
this kind of practical side to it, to move the IGF from being
very much
<br>
a talk and social event to something that has a very strong
practical
<br>
policy impact."
<br>
<br>
(4) I quoted the recommendations of the WG on Internet
Improvements
<br>
which are asking for explicit outcomes, and pointed out that if
such
<br>
outcomes are supposed to emerge from the discussions at the IGF,
then
<br>
that needs to be taken into account in the design of the main
sessions
<br>
so that what will be written in the outcome document will have
<br>
actually emerged from the discussions at the IGF meeting (the
<br>
transcript has this as "the structure of the main sessions in
the sense
<br>
of the sessions that have interpretation should really reflect
that the
<br>
structure should be chosen so that these outcomes are actually
outcomes
<br>
of those sessions, so that there should be a deliberative
process of the
<br>
community of participants in the IGF leading to this outcome").
<br>
<br>
If any of these points were picked up by other speakers, or if
any
<br>
other speakers made any similarly specifically integrity
oriented
<br>
comments, I have missed those comments.
<br>
<br>
Especially with regard to point (4) I find it worrying that
there was
<br>
so much discussion about main sessions formats without (as far
as I
<br>
noticed) anyone besides myself looking at that topic in relation
to
<br>
the need to having integrity in the process that produces the
outcome
<br>
documents.
<br>
<br>
I find this particularly worrying because in view of what went
wrong in
<br>
the process for producing the WSIS+10 outcome document, it
should have
<br>
been rather obvious that it is important to pay attention to
making
<br>
sure that the process for producing the IGF outcome documents
will have
<br>
integrity.
<br>
<br>
Greetings,
<br>
Norbert
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>