[bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg.

[Norbert Bollow]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:18:37 -0400
Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates> wrote:

> Avri, thanks for this excellent update.

+1

Greetings,
Norbert
 
> 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
> >