[bestbits] IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva 1-3 December 2014

Thu Sep 18 04:29:31 EDT 2014

Subi

As I’m not interested in participating in a public spectacle with you, I’m not going to respond in kind to your inflammatory verbiage and strategems.  So just the facts and then let’s move on.

Re: the December MAG meeting, I was informing people that I’d suggested to MAG that there be a time slot for stakeholder group meetings. You replied counter-proposing that SGs meet informally, so I merely noted that.  Quoting your reply to my suggestion is not paraphrasing or taking things out of context, and the rest of the message you forwarded doesn’t change what you said in response to my suggestion.

Re: the main session that was supposed to have discussed ways to strengthen the IGF in keeping with the NETmundial statement, there are people on these lists who know how you handled it, and anyone else who is interested can have a look at the relevant threads at 
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org  and
http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/  

Re: the additional narrative you apparently are trying to construct on workshops, the MAG's rankings are the product of a collective assessment and many proposals from many sources do not make the cut.  If that has included ones you were involved in or otherwise favored and hence the ranking system should be different, convince your colleagues on the MAG to change it.

Bye

Bill

On Sep 18, 2014, at 4:50 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> 
> Yes you did. And you're at it again.
> 
> First let me address the main session because you share information selectively.
> 
> On the main a seven month process was followed.  With you contributing.  With a list of panelists you would like to see on the panel amongst other things. Which incidentally were also coinciding with the same names you had as contributors to your book. All of them came with a lot of expertise.  Some we'd already reached out to and you're aware were on the panel. Just as you contributed, others from the MAG did too, through online inputs and in physical meetings towards shaping the main process. It was neither my intention nor is it possible to privately control anything on the MAG.  Quite the contrary. We work through rough consensus.
> 
> Several emails were sent seeking inputs at every single stage. It was a culmination of months of hard work which resulted in an interactive and productive main session on the role of IGF and the internet ecosystem along with strengthening the IGF. I am not expecting my effort and my time to be recognised but do please stop making wild allegations and your campaign of misinformation and disinformation.
> 
> We may disagree on approaches but as I said that shouldn't stop us from working towards a common goal which I believe is strengthening the IG ecosystem through a more robust and vibrant IGF.
> 
> I also understand your emphasis on quality and experience for any contributions to be acceptable at IGF including workshops. I disagree there, we may be a little rough around the edges, our proposals may not be well written in perfect english, we may not have all the speakers lined up months in advance and our issues may vary from a developing country perspective but they are essential too. We are also a part of the same ecosystem.  So a little tolerance from experienced members such as yourself will go along way in not chilling new voices. Others might not be as resilient or persistent.
> 
> Thank you for your understanding and patience.
> 
> Here's the full text of what I had shared with the secretariat and the MAG.
> 
> We have an intelligent community, so you do not need to paraphrase my text or quote it in part, throughly out of context.
> 
> Also one last thing before I close this conversation,  not only would I like to meet the CS members as I always do, I would also like to make the new members feel welcome. It goes a long way in allaying fears or any nervousness that any of us may have around each other. It is difficult to take to the mic in a room full of strangets for some. We did agree tgat we will make a deliberate attempt to break the club of insiders perception.
> 
> I do recall an email I sent to you when I joined the MAG in 2013 seeking your advice and mentoring. Essentially asking you to show me the ropes. I understand you're a busy man and wouldn't have had the time to respond to a new members request.  In person however when I sought you out, you did give me sound advice to sit in the front row as that would be a good way to follow what was going on, I took it.
> 
> Text of the mail I sent so that the secretariat may organise a capacity building session and interaction for new members because it is helpful.
> 
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
> Date: 17 Sep 2014 19:33
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] 答复: Open Consultations and MAG meetings 1-3 December 2014
> To: "Chengetai Masango" <cmasango at unog.ch>, "Janis Karklins" <karklinsj at gmail.com>, <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc:
> Thanks Chengetai for the clarification.  And as always your support to old, not so old and new MAG members is invaluable.
> 
> There are three ideas on the table at the moment for the orientation for new MAG members. They are not mutually exclusive.  Some proposals received:
> 
> This is an attempt at summarising them and then we hope we can look at the best fit.
> 
> 1. We have a general orientation for all the new members with the chair and the secretariat.  All the present MAG members who wish to join voluntarily can also participate.
> This was done in 2013 and was very well received.  Scheduled during the lunch break on day 1.
> 
> Preceeded by a "meet and greet", round of introductions by all MAG members stating their stakeholder groups and their affiliations this is done in the presence of all MAG members and the wider community during the first 15 minutes of Day 1 of the open Consultation and MAG meeting.
> 
> Both these activities are a part of the formal agenda.
> 
> I support the process because it addresses some of the concerns raised by colleagues like Angelic and others.
> 
> 2. We do a seperate break out group on stakeholder basis.
> 
> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
> 
> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
> 
> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together.
> 
> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
> 
> So that leads us to Option 3
> 
> 3. As suggested by Marilyn. And I'd like to also volunteer.  We can do this on day 1 as an additional initiative where we combine a "hello my name is... followed by these are my expectations from the IGF and this is what I bring to the MAG by way of skill sets or expertise..
> 
> Since time is usually limited and this is mostly informal and without mics we'd like it to be an icebreaker.
> 
> Trust this is helpful for all members to consider. I would however make a request that the secretariat and the chair, also consider an orientation session during lunch break and a formal round of introductions on Day1 with all present.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Subi Chaturvedi
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Subi Chaturvedi
> 
> 
> On 18 Sep 2014 00:20, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Subi
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subi.igp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Bill,
> >>
> >> First things first. Please do NOT misqoute and misrepresent me. I did not disagree at all. I have clearly mentioned the need for both.
> >
> > I did neither.  You said,
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> While I see merit in Bill's suggestion I would also like to see all stakeholders meet and speak with each other as MAG.
> >>
> >> Because of a full schedule and a well rounded agenda we do not have an opportunity to do that. Some team building excercises are in order. Ana and I discussed this in detail at the IGF Istanbul.
> >>
> >> While different stakeholder groups are free to meet each other informally as they have done in the past,  a joint session which includes all MAG members new and old has its own merits as all of us need to work together.
> >>
> >> We can still do both as we have done in the past.
> >>
> >>
> > So whereas I proposed something new, setting aside a formal time in the agenda for new and old MAG members to meet in the stakeholder groups they nominally come from, you gave them permission to meet informally, as in the past.  This is the opposite of what I was suggested.
> >
> > I can understand why you might not want a meeting of civil society people involved in the MAG, just like I could understand your efforts to privately control the main session on the IGF in Istanbul.  But please do not pretend we are saying the same thing when we are not.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Bill
> 

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140918/6e45e777/attachment.htm>