[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sun Jan 27 12:26:33 EST 2013
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
> Quick thoughts:
>
> - Call for proposals: Should be done in an open and transparent fashion. I am of the opinion that the call should be done after the open consultation/MAG meeting in Feb. That's been how it has been done in the past, and works well.
>
Think you're wrong. The first meeting typically proposes themes for
the year. IGF website now says:
"Call for Contributions
Stakeholders are invited to submit written contributions taking stock
of the Baku 2012 IGF meeting and looking forward - suggestions on
themes and format, for the IGF 2013 meeting. Contributions should be
emailed to igf at unog.ch before 14 February 2013."
Nothing new about this. The MAG should respond to contributions from
stakeholders. The first program paper will come soon after the
Feb/March meeting. It will layout themes for the year.
For the main themes, my suggestion is all five should remain as guides
for workshops, but security openness privacy, access, Internet
governance for development were poor in Baku and should be dropped as
main sessions. Taking stock and emerging issues should merge as a
single session so that a review of the week tells us which issues have
'emerged' as important and provide pointers for themes for the next
year (it makes little sense to have emerging issues as anything other
than a response to what we've learned over the previous 3 days). Such
a session might also help inform recommendations/suggestions from the
IGF.
Adam
> To not do so, would give the appearance that the MAG has already decided on issues/topics and is trying to impose them. That, is not acceptable.
>
> - We seem to be still stuck on the same nomenclature for overall themes that were developed years ago. As I proposed at last year's IGF MAG consultations, we might want to see if the frame of "Stewardship" that is used in international relations discussions might be helpful
>
> - In the proposed schedule below I don't see where issues such as Cyber Security, Openness, Surveillance, Rights & privacy would feed into. Yes, they have been part of IGF's in the past, but they are still key issues of concern for all stakeholders.
>
> - If we want experiment with different formats for discussion and dialogue at the IGF, I would highly suggest we borrow approaches taken at other highly successful meetings.
>
> Let's borrow from the success of a variety of informal/ad-hoc/Discussion Presentation formats (such as TED, "Davos Style" , unconfererence, lightning talks, BOF's) are used successfully at other conferences such as the IETF, Davos, Tech at State and TEDx.
>
> More informal styles of engagement might prove to be a bit challenging to some stakeholder groups - such as governments - who aren't accustomed to them. Success will require an experienced moderator/facilitator.
>
>
> Refs:
>
>
> Unconference Format
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference
>
> TEDx
> http://www.ted.com/tedx
>
> NTEN - Nonprofit Tech Conference
> http://www.nten.org/ntc
>
> Robert
>
> --
> R. Guerra
> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
>
> On 2013-01-27, at 6:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with Internet principles as the overall theme, but do
>> agree it's a topic that needs significant focus. I think it's clear
>> after 7 IGFs that a session of 2 or 3 hours and a few scattered
>> workshops doesn't begin to scratch the surface of an issue. So how
>> could we use a day? Would more depth of discussion be more likely to
>> lead to some form of outcome?
>>
>> Just a thought:
>> Structured discussion on the morning (might be a panel or a round
>> table in a plenary setting).
>> Free, small group discussion middle of the day (working in small
>> ad-hoc groups to address issues and or questions identified during the
>> morning)
>> Back to "plenary" for shared discussion? (use moderators to manage
>> the flow: some are getting very good at this role. For example, I
>> think Bill Drake and Jeanette Hofmann have been excellent. Better than
>> the "professionals".)
>>
>> But just a thought, how else might a full day be used to develop a
>> useful dialogue about one topic?
>>
>> Schedule might look like:
>>
>> Day 1. AM: Opening ceremony.
>> Day 1. PM: Critical Internet Resources (3 hours)
>> Day 2. Enhanced Cooperation (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch")
>> Day 3. Internet Principles (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch")
>> Day 4. AM: Taking Stock and Emerging Issues (3 hours)
>> Day 4. PM: Outcomes (1 hour). Closing Ceremony
>>
>> My opinion, 3 hours is a long time and takes a good subject or it
>> drags. Only CIR from Baku worked the 3 hours well. (IMHO etc etc)
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:31 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I may also remind that I had proposed that IGC supports the Internet Rights
>>> and Principles (IRP) Group which is likely to propose that
>>>
>>> (1) Internet principles in some form be the overall theme of the next IGF -
>>> Maybe something more descriptive as - 'public interest principles for the
>>> Internet' or 'Shaping global principles for the Internet'
>>>
>>> (2) A round table on Internet Principles be held at the next IGF.
>>>
>>> I am developing a first draft for the IRP Group, if IGC so wants I can share
>>> it with IGC as well.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday 27 January 2013 04:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Norbert,
>>>
>>> No, sorry, no time to work on a draft. But look forward to discussion
>>> and hopefully some consensus.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>>>
>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> Resending email sent to the list on Jan 10. Deadline for
>>> contributions is Feb 14.
>>>
>>> Just over two weeks to agree any contribution.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reminding us! This is urgent and imporant.
>>>
>>> Adam, are you willing and able to take the time to quickly produce a
>>> first draft?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>> A few comments for the February/March consultation.
>>>
>>> Public archive of MAG mailing list needed, not been updated for a
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Workshops: too many. 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.
>>>
>>> Minimum of 50% of MAG members must complete assessment of all
>>> workshops.
>>>
>>> Clarify rules for other sessions (open forums, dynamic coalition,
>>> etc.)
>>>
>>> No reason an initial call to prepare proposals can't be made before
>>> the Feb meeting (more time better and the meetings a little later than
>>> usual). A reminder to MAG members to ready their stakeholders.
>>>
>>> For workshops, keep the current themes (access, SOP
>>> [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance for
>>> development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging issues).
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Merging 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).
>>>
>>> Overall theme for 2013: "enhanced cooperation -- meaningful
>>> participation of developing countries in Internet governance".
>>>
>>> Main sessions. Mix up the formats, 3 hours generally too long, some
>>> poorly attended in Baku and 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, MAG needs to be aware they
>>> have a role to complete, not last minute for a meeting of the IGF's
>>> importance.) Invite speakers early. Use (look for) funds to support
>>> speakers.
>>>
>>> Taking stock and emerging issues: mix the two sessions, then
>>> justifies 3 hours. Probably best held on the final morning (i.e.
>>> emerging issues become issues the IGF thinks emerging as important for
>>> the coming year(s)).
>>>
>>> Final afternoon: session on outcomes (1 hour), followed by closing.
>>>
>>> Critical Internet Resources (strong session in Baku, justifies 3
>>> hours). Keep as before.
>>>
>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> New theme: Internet principles. One day, perhaps same format as
>>> suggested for enhanced cooperation. Try something different.
>>>
>>> Development aspect of IG always overlooked and too often "governance"
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Time to drop access and SOP as main sessions, but keep as workshops
>>> and perhaps round-tables.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list