[governance] Part B Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Avri Doria]

> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Nick's comment
>> ===================================
>> 
> 
> ....
> 
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>> should limit the number of workshops, remove the text relating to
>> that point, resulting in the following text for paragraph 14, with the
>> possible change from the above proposed resolution added in brackets:
>> "Even then a reduction of the number of main sessions is necessary.
>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere.
>> [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and
>> new voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from
>> many times.]"
> 
> 
> Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Parminder's comment
> ========================================
> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
> coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
> including those with influence over or connections to processes of
> policy development. Main sessions have the potential to allow for
> high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
> can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
> sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
> Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
> security or openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions
> should not be treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those
> with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
> segment of the IGF community to attend. Consequently, the programme
> should be restructured so that main sessions and workshops are not
> happening at the same time. Maybe the IGF could be extended to five
> says?"
> 
> Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible changes from the above
> proposed resolutions marked by brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
> number of main sessions [and a reduction of the number of workshops] is
> necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary year
> by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
> everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous
> IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who have been
> heard from many times.]"

I disagree with [and a reduction of the number of workshops]
or rather i am fine with it being in brackets until it is deleted.


> 
> Parminder has attached the following comment to paragraph 13, in
> response to Avri's comment: "Main sessions remain the main part of IGFs
> and should not be reduced or truncated."

I disagree.  They are the fluff of the IGF, and for the most part are just for show.


> 
> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus to recommend a
> reduction of main sessions, remove the text relating to that point. If
> the two preceding proposed resolutions are also accepted, this results
> in the following text for paragraph 14: "The specific choice of main
> session topics should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics”
> that are on the tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be
> ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new voices should be
> prioritised over those who have been heard from many times."

I can agree to this.

> 
> 
>> Paragraph 15
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 15: "The formats of the main sessions should
>> be varied more. 3 hours is generally too long, some were poorly
>> attended in Baku and there were many grumbled complaints about poor
>> content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
>> Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good –
>> transcripts illustrate the differences), the MAG has an important fole
>> to fulfil in regarding to ensuring good main sessions. Invite speakers
>> early.  Find funds to support speakers. Planning of the sessions
>> should be more open and transparent."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "The reason main session are ignored is because
>> they are old fashioned pabulum spooning opportunities. They are too
>> big for real participation by attendees, so they end up panels that
>> seem to even bore many of the panelists"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 
>> 

Proposed solution: drop the paragragh.

>> Paragraph 16
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 16: "It would be good to have one main
>> session with a completely different outcome-oriented format that is
>> more actively facilitated, for example a “speed dialogue” or a
>> “moderated debate”. Amongst the most important foundations for this
>> sort of format is that the participants need to be empowered (ie. they
>> will produce something at the end), and that the power imbalances
>> between them are eliminated for the duration of the exercise (through
>> the way in which the process is facilitated)."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think this is fine for workshop and even for
>> part of amin session, but fear a whole main session of this would just
>> be a garble."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 

Proposed solution: drop the paragraph.

>> 
>> Paragraph 17
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 17: "Taking stock and emerging issues:  Mix
>> the two sessions, that then justifies 3 hours.  This will probably be
>> best held on the final morning (i.e. emerging issues become issues the
>> IGF thinks emerging as important for the coming year(s))."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think taking stick is relatively unimportant
>> since it is really just self aggrandizement. I think the emerging
>> issues is possible the most important and relevant of the main session
>> and should be one of the list bringing together all the emerging
>> issues that have come up during the week and those which were still
>> not advanced enough to be covered."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Proposed solution: drop the paragraph.

Add paragraph:  Emerging issues set the stage for the problems that need to be faced by Internet governance in the coming year. This session should point the way to the work that needs to be done, so that the IGF stakeholders can come out of the meeting with an understanding of the work to be done in the coming year.  This session should get greater emphasis and should include possible ways forward.  Ie. it should be rebranded: Emerging issues and the Ways Forward.  this session could include "Inputs from the IGF' that could then be made available within the Ig ecosystem.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 19
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 19: "Critical Internet Resources was a
>> strong session in Baku, this justifies 3 hours.  Keep this."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think this may be getting old. I think that if
>> it becomes a review of the existing mechanisms, it may be worth doing,
>> but just to say the same things over and over and over year after year
>> after year is just unproductive."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Replace paragraph with:

Continuing focus on cIr remains important and should be the focus of continuing workshops emphasizing specific substantive issues and the current state of multistakeholder modalities in the various cIr management institutions.  At this point, the main session on cIr is not necessary, though there may be references to cIr brought into the Emerging Issues and the Ways Forward session based on the outcomes from the workshops.  


>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 20
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 20: "New theme: Enhanced Cooperation.
>> Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day, e.g. Morning expert panel
>> session 2 hours. Follow by a long break where people encouraged to
>> join self-organizing small groups (there probably needs to be active
>> facilitation of the process to encourage small groups to form with a
>> good mix of stakeholder categories) to discuss a few set questions and
>> ideas from the morning panel. Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with
>> audience only, no panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the
>> small groups."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I agree that this is a good direction to go in
>> and should be one of the two major focuses of the upcoming IGF –
>> other than Human Rights."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Proposed solution: leave it as is.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 21 / suggestion to not reference "MS framework of
>> commitments"
>> ========================================================================
>> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in
>> Baku to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations
>> on Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
>> “compendium” as a first step towards something like a
>> multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
>> Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
>> the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would be
>> very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>> 
>> Parminder commented: "A 'MS framework of commitments of IG principles'
>> was just one of the several proposals on the way/ manner to go forward
>> with developing Internet principles, and the nature of the ultimate
>> output of the process. There are many others. I do not agree to use
>> one specific proposal in this direction in the common IGC proposal...
>> There are people for instance who have at earlier times sought a
>> framework convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP, APC). So lets not
>> associate our statement with one particular approach, about which,
>> for one, I have specific and clear reservations."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Remove the implied endorsement of the "MS
>> framework of commitments", resulting in the following new text for
>> paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and principles. One day,
>> perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Or try
>> something different. There was a proposal in Baku to summarize all
>> (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on Principles” (25+) of
>> the last three years and to produce a “compendium”. Bali has to take
>> the next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive
>> and analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this
>> into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>> 

Looks like a good solution to me.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraphs 21 and 22 / suggestions to add further points
>> ========================================================
>> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
>> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
>> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
>> “compendium” as a first step towards something like a
>> multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
>> Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
>> the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would be
>> very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>> 
>> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
>> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
>> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
>> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific
>> public comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May
>> meeting to decide on topics and format."
>> 
>> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
>> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
>> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG
>> to proceed unfortunately."
>> 
>> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
>> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
>> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
>> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
>> suggestions to that effect."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "As part of the Human rights overal themes this seems
>> worth doing."
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and
>> the review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in
>> 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for
>> development?"
>> 
>> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
>> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
>> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
>> Action Plan (2003)"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
>> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite
>> of the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
>> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
>> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
>> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
>> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
>> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in
>> Bali.] [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium
>> Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG
>> follow up into the discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS
>> of Action from 2003 could be looked at.] Open specific public comment
>> on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to
>> decide on topics and format."

I think this looks ok, including the language in the []s.


>> 
>> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
>> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 26
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 26: "At the 2012 IGF, there were too many
>> workshops. Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target number known
>> when the call for applications is published, might be the first time
>> quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think about
>> implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
>> disappointed"
>> 
>> Avri commented: "I disagree about their being too many workshops.
>> there should be as many workshops as there is room and good
>> workshops. Yes the MAG should have standards and should be strict
>> about workshops meeting those standards, but there should not be an
>> artificial shortage of opportunities for workshops."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>> should limit the number of workshops, remove this paragraph in its
>> entirety. (The point about having standards and being strict about
>> those standards is covered in paragraph 27.)

ok with me.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 28
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 28: "For workshops, keep the current themes
>> (access, SOP [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance
>> for development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging
>> issues)."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "I think the categories should be examined. I see
>> little point in CIR, unless it becomes review of CIR institutions."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.


suggested replacement:

MAG should put out an immediate call for workshop themes.  It should then review these themes and put out requests for workshops pertinent to these themes.  In developing the themes, while it should review the historic themes, it should also review new ways of approaching some themes which have remained constant over the years, but in which little progress was made.  the MAG should also be careful to judge workshop proposals on their relevance to current Internet governance circumstances as discussed in contributions and in the consultations, and not just try to force workshops into pre-arranged categories.



>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 29
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 29: "Have the MAG better define Internet
>> Governance, how it must be considered in workshop proposals (there are
>> other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation
>> form for workshops (at the moment don’t even know if a room was empty
>> or overflowing, simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are
>> that while there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in
>> content, well received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success
>> to favor the floundering main sessions."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "Internet governance is well defined between the WGIG
>> report, the WGIG Background report and the TA, i do not see the MAG
>> getting into a discussion of what Ig is? Perhaps as a workshop idea,
>> people can examine these many working definitions to see if there is a
>> cause for updating, but the MAG is not the place for this. The MAG
>> should be a doer, not another body on introspecting academics. thee is
>> a place for academic conjecture, but the MAG is not it."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Make the text of paragraph 29 clearer so
>> that it cannot be misunderstood as asking for a redefinition of
>> Internet Governance, resulting in the following new text for paragraph
>> 29: "Clearly state in the call for workshop proposals that the
>> proposed workshops shall relate to Internet Governance (as the
>> term is defined in the WGIG report, the WGIG Background report and the
>> Tunis Agenda); there are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG
>> issues.  Use an evaluation form for workshops (at the moment don’t
>> even know if a room was empty or overflowing, simple count a good
>> idea.)  However, indications are that while there were too many
>> workshops in Baku, many were strong in content, well received.  MAG
>> should not cut what looks like a success to favor the floundering main
>> sessions."

I am ok with this.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 30
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 30: "Merging is not the always the solution,
>> it’s too easy an answer for MAG in their evaluation to say merge
>> simply because proposals have similar words in the title.  If merging
>> proposed then the new workshop needs support or tendency to end up
>> with 2 workshops in the same space (merge in name only)."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "Merging is rarely the solution. If two are the same
>> the MAG should pick one based on its objective criteria, and make them
>> responsible integrating what they can of the other."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Replace paragraph 30 with the text of Avri's
>> comment.
>> 
>> 

ok
slight improved wording without changing what i meant:

Past experience has shown that merging workshops rarely serves to improve a workshop.  If two workshop proosals are similar or the same, the MAG should use the criteria that have been established for workshops to pick the one that best meets those criteria.  It should then be the responsibility of the workshop that was chosen to integrate what they can from the proposal of the rejected workshop(s) without overloading or otherwise diluting the content of the selcted workshop.


>> Paragraph 31
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 31: "The rules for other sessions (open
>> forums, dynamic coalition, etc.) should be clarified."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "No matter how clear they are made, and they were
>> rather clear last year, people will abuse those definitions. the point
>> is for the MAG and secretariat to live up to the defintiions and
>> criteria."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Add a sentence:

the MAg and Secretariat must endeavor to not let outside pressures force them into accepting sessions that do no meet the rules established for sessions.


>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 32
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 32: "The IGF pre-events have to be revisited
>> and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection
>> as  these are receiving a lot of attention by participants."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "And yet these need to remain separate from the IGF so
>> they are not reduced to lowest common form as many other session under
>> the auspice of the IGF are."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 

The IGF pre-events have added a lot to the richness of the IGF experience.  These events should remain independent, but should receive more timely attentions in terms of scheduling, planning and advertisement.


>> 
>> Paragraph 36
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
>> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>> 
>> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
>> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
>> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide,
>> you need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>> 
>> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
>> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
>> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
>> stakeholders can comment."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
>> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
>> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
>> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 46
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 46: "The sudden shift of Open Consultations
>> and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open
>> consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical
>> pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to
>> already participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain
>> individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for
>> people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and
>> participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge.
>> Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain
>> why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other
>> and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this?"
>> 
>> Avri commented: "I do not understand this. Is the problem that they
>> need 2 visas? that I understand. I do not understand the choice
>> issue."
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow replied: "I believe the problem is in regard to people
>> from countries whose citizens have a hard time getting visas for
>> Europe. Applying for a Swiss visa will be hard to justify for
>> attending a meeting in Paris. On the other hand, the IGF secretariat
>> (which happens to be in Geneva, Switzerland) probably does not have
>> the kind of relationship with the French authorities that would allow
>> it to assist with applications for French visas."

Why would someone apply for a Swiss visa to attend a meeting in France?

I thnk there is a complicated issue:

- on one hand, we want to minimize travel and combine the IGF consultations with other meetings is we can, in fact this one one of the original thought behind the forum that it would meet in conjunction with other events so that not only would travel be minimized by synergies would be encouraged.

- on the other hand the visa regime sucks for people living in many countries.


>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

I am not sure how we solve this.  I would like to see nations convinced to drop visa requirements for all attendees at Ig meetings, but that is a fantasy.  Perhaps this is something we can call for:

Additional paragraph:  Any country that hosts an Internet governance or management meeting should establish special Visa wavers for attendance and should set up offices for Visa assistance before being approved as a location for an Internet governance or management meetings.

I would think something like this would be a good goal for ALL Ig meeting, not just WSIS and IGF.

In terms of help, since this meeting is under the auspices of the host UNESCO, I would contact them for Visa assistance.


>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 50
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 50: "IGF should put out a call for host
>> country expression of interest, with clearly laid out principles and
>> process for selection, instead of simply waiting for offers."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "ho about adding the notion of a public comment on the
>> applicant hosts before a desion is made. And who is to make this
>> decision. I beleive that is something that the MAG should make a
>> recommendation on to the powers that be."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
> 

Add sentence:

These expressions of interest should be subject to IGF stakeholder consultation and MAG recommendation before they are approved as a location for IGF meetings.
> 

thanks for this great layout and all the effort to get this done right.

avri


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t