[bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg.

Fri May 29 09:59:38 EDT 2015

Dear David,

Many thanks for this. I am familiar with Pranesh's excellent work.
First, however, we have to get past an initial hurdle, which is having the
basic session proposal accepted by the MAG, by consensus.
I will provide an update to this list once we know the outcome.

Sincerely,
Susan

Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

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

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:37 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> I would recommend Pranesh Prakash as a civil society member with
> interesting things to say on the zero rating topic.
>
> David
>
> On 26 May 2015, at 4:18 am, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20150529/9bcd4749/attachment.htm>