[Governance] Today - 16 Years of IGF Evolution and Strengthening – Taking Stock and Looking Forward

[Olga Cavalli]

Hi many thanks Ayden for the recording
I was not able to attend due to a conflicting activity
regards to all
best
Olga

El mié, 17 nov 2021 a las 17:14, Ayden Férdeline via Governance (<
governance at lists.igcaucus.org>) escribió:

> I really enjoyed this session; thank you Anriette and Bill for moderating!
>
> A recording is on YouTube here for those who were unable to attend live:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gIrQd5RNo
>
> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, November 17th, 2021 at 13:39, Anriette Esterhuysen via
> Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all
>
> As we move closer to celebrating the IGF's 15th anniversary, please do
> join this IGF2021 Preparatory and Engagement Phase session on Wednesday, 17
> November, at 13h00 UTC
>
> https://www.intgovforum.org/en/node/15588
>
> Looking forward to lively and useful discussion.
>
> Anriette
>
> *16 Years of IGF Evolution and Strengthening – Taking Stock and Looking
> Forward*
>
> Wednesday, 17th November, 2021 (15:00 SAST) - Wednesday, 17th November,
> 2021 (16:30 SAST)
>
> *Facilitated by MAG Chair in collaboration with the MAG Working Group on
> IGF Strategy and Strengthening*
>
> Interactive moderated panel that will look back and take stock of how the
> IGF has evolved and what its key achievements have been; reflect on the
> current and future internet governance ecosystem and the IGF’s role in
> this ecosystem, particularly in the context of ‘digital cooperation’ and
> the UN-Secretary General’s proposed ‘global digital compact’. The panel
> will consider the role the IGF has and can play in inclusive internet
> governance, both through the further development of the multistakeholder
> approach and through closer engagement with multilateral processes. Finally
> the session will consider what is meant by the idea of a “stronger, more
> focused and impactful IGF” and propose specific steps to be taken to
> establish a stronger, more strategic IGF that operates on the basis of a
> multi-year plan working to the goal of the idea of an “IGF plus” with the
> institutional capacity, leadership and oversight needed to see it through
> the renewal of its mandate in 2025 and beyond.
>
> Process: The meeting will divided into roughly three parts with panelists
> speaking @ 20 minutes in each, with the remaining time reserved for open
> discussion with all participants.
>
> Moderators: Anriette Esterhuysen, MAG chair and William Drake, Columbia
> University, former MAG and WGIG member
>
> Rapporteurs:  Giacomo Mazzone, past MAG member and member, MAG WG-strategy,
> Roman Chukov and Amrita Choudhury (MAG WG-strategy co-chairs)
>
> Panelists:
>
> Part I: Past/Origins
>
>    1. Markus Kummer – IGF Support Association,  WGIG and past IGF
>    Executive Coordinator and interim MAG chair - CONFIRMED
>    2. Wolfgang Kleinwächter – WGIG and EuroSSIG - CONFIRMED
>    3. Christine Arida - Strategic Planning Sector Head at National
>    Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (NTRA) of Egypt a past host country
>    of the IGF - CONFIRMED
>
> PART II – Present dynamics
>
>    1. Fiona Alexander – past MAG member and previously with the NTIA and
>    member of MAG WG strategy - CONFIRMED
>    2. Flavio Wagner - past MAG member and member of MAG WG-strategy -
>    CONFIRMED
>    3. Parminder Jeet Singh, IT For Change (cs) - CONFIRMED
>    4. Esteve Sanz, Head of Sector EC - member of MAG WG-strategy (gov) -
>    CONFIRMED
>
> Part III: Futures/Options
>
>    1. Yu Ping Chan, Office of the UN SG’s Envoy on Technology - CONFIRMED
>    2. Concettina Cassa - past MAG member and co-chair WG-strategy (Gov) -
>    CONFIRMED
>    3. Mark Carvell - EuroDIG Member and former UK government policy
>    advisers and MAG member. Member of MAG WG-strategy - CONFIRMED
>
> Questions and topics to be addressed
>
> Part I: Past/Origins
>
> 1. Over the years there have been various expressions of frustration with
> the IGF supposedly being just a “talk shop” that does not take binding
> decisions.  But this is an essential part of the IGF’s DNA, as it is what
> governments and stakeholders at the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit thought was
> needed and what they could agree to.  To set the stage for our discussion,
> please reflect on the considerations and processes that shaped the
> fundamental features of the IGF’s design and made it what it has become
> today.
>
> 2.  The IGF Mandate approved by the 2005 Tunis WSIS summit included
> provisions stating that the IGF should “Promote and assess, on an ongoing
> basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance
> processes;” and “Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of
> the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
> recommendations.”  To what extent has the IGF pursued these objectives?
> What has been achieved or not regarding these functions, and why?
>
> 3.  The global Internet governance agenda has evolved significantly over
> the past sixteen years, with many of the issues and political dynamics that
> animated early IGFs drifting from center stage while new ones came to the
> fore.  What have been the key shifts in substantive focus and institutional
> dynamics over the course of the IGF’s history to date?
>
> Part II – Present dynamics
>
> 1.  Name one positive change or achievement that you feel can be
> attributed to the IGF. Is there anything significant that might have
> turned out differently if we had not had the IGF?
>
> 2. Has the IGF altered the global discourse or debate in any significant
> ways? How much does such discourse and soft norms matter, relative to
> negotiated formal agreements?
>
> 3.  The IGF has spawned new collaborative processes that work on an
> intersessional basis and then feed into the meetings, e.g. the policy
> networks, the NRIs, the DCs and the BPFs.  Have these efforts yielded any
> important results? What could be done to increase their salience? What
> roles could they play going forward as the landscape of Internet governance
> and digital cooperation continues to evolve?
>
> 4.  How has the multistakeholder approach worked in the IGF? Is it
> continuing to develop conceptually and practically, or has it stagnated? If
> it has, what can be done to renew it?
>
> Part III: Futures/Options
>
> 1.  There have been various calls, including from high-level government
> figures, for the IGF to produce more tangible outcomes.  What forms could
> these take? What would be needed for the international community to agree
> to such a process and outcome?
>
> 2.  With regard to the United Nations’ Roadmap and Common Agenda, what
> roles and value-added do you see for the IGF?  Do you see a specific role
> of the IGF with regard to the proposed Global Digital Compact?
>
> 3.  What is your view of the terms of reference for the new Leadership
> Panel (formerly referred to as the MHLB)? How can we make this a useful
> grouping?  What about the MAG, do its terms of reference and functioning
> need to change?
>
> 4. Proposals have been made for the IGF Secretariat and MAG to work
> collaboratively on a multi-year plan. Do you think this is feasible? How
> would you go about developing and implementing such a plan?
>
> 5.  Name one aspect of how the IGF operates that you would change, and
> one aspect you would like to retain.
>
> --
> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
> Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Groupwww.intgovforum.org
>
> Senior advisor global and regional internet governance
> Association for Progressive Communicationswww.apc.org // afrisig.org
>
>
> --
> Governance mailing list
> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20211117/84ad7a35/attachment.htm>