[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
Norbert Bollow
nb at bollow.ch
Mon Jan 28 10:12:45 EST 2013
Michael,
could you put these suggestions into the form of concrete textual
changes relative to the draft document
http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79 ?
Thanks,
greetings,
Norbert
Am Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:38:25 -0800
schrieb "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> In addition to a focus on Internet Rights and Principles (R&P) for
> IGF-Bali, there should also I believe, be a focus on WSIS +10
> (upcoming in 2015) and rather than de-emphasizing Internet Governance
> for Development (IG4D) it should be re-oriented and revivified (if
> for no other reason than a natural association with the LDC location
> of IGF-Bali) with an emphasis on the WSIS declaration and how it
> might be updated in light of rapidly changing circumstances.
>
> The admittedly stale IG4D plenary sessions could be replaced by
> bringing to the fore some of the emerging experiences (and new
> actors) in IG4D (in mobiles and broadband for example) and then
> reflecting on the IG issues/opportunities/gaps that are emerging.
>
> And of course, there is a link between the R&P issue and WSIS +10 at
> least through the WSIS Declaration's concern for an "inclusive
> Information Society" (one of the reasons why it is so astonishing and
> disappointing that the ISOC, IETF, IAB statement on standards
> recently noted on this list omitted any mention or concern for
> "inclusion" as one of the principles on which standards should be
> assessed).
>
> M
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam
> Peake Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra
> Subject: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG
> meeting
>
> 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