[bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg.

[Susan Chalmers]

Dear Avri, all,

Avri, thanks for this excellent update.

Very briefly - on the last point Avri made - I wanted to let everyone know
that I am proposing a main session to focus on zero-rating and the various
aspects of this issue. The community, through submitted workshop proposals,
expressed great interest in the issue. There were no less than eight
proposals that either focused mainly on zero-rating or included it as a
topic for discussion. The zero-rating question is challenging policymakers
the world over, and for good reason: it's a really hard topic!

I will propose a main session that includes all sides of the issue,
including zero-rated content providers, ISPs who zero-rate, end users from
developed and developing countries, competition experts, freedom of
expression advocates, and other suggested parties to map out this very
important public policy issue, in public at the IGF.

We have only 10 days from May 22nd to submit a 250-word proposal - so June
1st as I see it (to be confirmed with the Chair). If you'd like to
contribute edits to the proposal, please contact me off list and I will
share the Google doc.

Warm regards,
Susan



Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

*CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> (The following is an edited copy of a message I sent to another list. It
> was suggested that it be forwarded here too. )
>
> Hi,
>
> ... the issue with main sessions is still open and a touch confusing.
> After spending a day and half finding our way to a list of workshops we
> started on the Main session plan.  A quick explanation on how we got to
> the list of workshops while I am at it.
>
> - the top ranked 60 were automatically in.
> - the next 10 were in unless someone had a reason for them not being
> in.  I think in the end they may have all ended up in, though I am not
> positive about 1 of them.  Will need to check notes and final lists to
> be sure.
> - for the next 30, it was a balancing process.  Based on the various
> proportions, e.g. previous organizer : new organizer,  or developed
> nation : developing, same old panel : other format, same old topic : new
> topic, stakeholder group : other stakeholder groups, &c. MAG members had
> to champion a session on the balancing perspective ( a blanket
> acceptance of all sessions being good sessions was made the chair)
> for it to be considered further.  We then went through them in a
> detailed sort of way trying to balance.  It took 2 passes through a list
> of nominated sessions to come to the 100 selected.  The rest of workshop
> sessions are filled by open fora, dynamic coalitions (DC), best practice
> fora (BPF), and the intersessional work.
>
> We also spent a fair amount of time of micromanaging, deciding whether
> someone needed 90 minutes, 60 minutes or a flash.  ...
>
> (re, when the final list will be posted, don't know for sure but expect
> soon. Secretariat has a lot of work to do in notifications)
>
> Re the intersessional work,
>
> This is being worked in response to CSTD recommendations on IGF
> Improvements, there is a an open team of MAG members and others working
> on this effort (I am one of the coordinators, but have been a passive
> one).  It was slow to get going.  At this point the call is
> coming out in the next day or so.  Basically using the working group
> (WG) concept that is borrowed from many institutions and has been
> modified for BPF, we will first
>
> ●      Launch public call for background contributions on the theme of
> “/Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/”. Contributions will
> be gathered and ultimately incorporated in the output through an
> iterative process.
>
> &c.
>
> The call should be out shortly.
> There was a lunch conversation on the draft.
> (Latest draft can be found at:
> <
> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org/2015-May/000094.html
> >)
>
> Re The origin of the main session schedule
>
> In terms of main sessions, a self selected ad-hoc subgroup had met
> during lunch on day 2 and set up a schedule that includes a half day on
> IGF @ 10  and a full day dedicated to WSIS+10 (3 main session slots).
> Therefore , when considering pre-session, starting and closing ceremony
> (3 full session) left, 2 full sessions (4 hemisessions) were left for
> substantive issues.
>
> It seems we were going to invite the President of the General Assembly
> (PGA) and needed to dedicate that much time to WSIS   If the PGA rejects
> the idea, then we will get 1 thematic session back.
>
>
> Re WSIS session:
>
> Part of what is playing out was act 3 in the WSIS Continuation stage.
> Starting in CSTD (which I did not attend), continuing through the 2
> weeks of ITU Council (which I did attend) and coming into IGF was
> a bit successful but mostly not.  ITU wanted to organize a
> multistakeholder consultation on WSIS but was not allowed to by the
> members states.  So now IGF was being used by those who want a
> consultation on the future of WSIS.  Last stop before NYC.   And the
> largest most diverse of group of participants is to be found in IGF 2015.
> So if the PGA, it will be Denmark I believe,  is willing to come to the
> IGF for consultations, there will be a full day of consultations in Brazil.
>
> Re IGF @ 10
>
> Since the UNGA is going to decide on IGF's continuing fate this year,
> that seemed necessary to most all of us thought it a reasonable bit of
> scheduling.  Some think it should have more time.
>
> Re the  remaining 2 main session slots,  we were given a list and each
> given a chance to argue to 2 topics on the list.  I am not sure I
> remember the whole list, but it included
>
> - net neutrality
> - internet economy
> - human rights
> - IANA stuff
> - cybersecurity
> - ... (couple more i did not write them down, perhaps another
> participant on this list has the full list)
>
>
> In any case there was a supported recommendation that those sitting in
> the room should not be deciding this on our own and that we should poll
> the community.   In the end the chair decided those of us in the MAG
> that championed a particular theme should work on a brief description
> and we should put them out  for discussion.
>
> I may think of more, but this is it for pre-breakfast mind-dump on a
> holiday morning of a day when I have a paper to finish a draft of.
> Happy to answer questions if I can.
>
> avri
>
> ----
>
> Funding disclosure specifically for BB: This trip to GVA for ITU Council
> was paid for by a combination of my air miles and shared support from 3
> Civil Society advocacy groups to whom I give updates and reports on ITU
> activities concerning ITU CWG WSIS and ITU CWG IPP. I piggybacked the
> MAG meeting on the ITU trip.  I participated in the ITU Council
> activities as a member of the US delegation. I participate in the MAG
> meeting as a first year appointee suggested by civil society
> coordination group. My ITU time is not paid for. I do not get support
> for participating in the MAG.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150525/2a5b8027/attachment.htm>