[Wg-imp] Continuation of the WG on Improvements to the IGF in 2018
Flávio Rech Wagner
flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Fri Apr 6 18:24:22 EDT 2018
Hi everyone
IMHO, the WG-IMP does not have only a clerical task ahead. Cleaning up
the tables and adding a few markers are indeed clerical tasks, but this
is just a preparation for the real work that is expected from the WG,
which is the assessment of how far the IGF advanced towards the real
implementation of the proposed improvements. In many cases, assessing
recommendations may ask for an evaluation from experienced members of
the community.
The assessment is clearly indicated as the first (and main) purpose of
the WG in the charter of the WG-IMP as it has been created in 2017:
●Review the set of recommendations for IGF improvement and documents
that offer direction or community input on specific topics to assess the
extent to which they have been implemented. For those which are
considered implemented this would be noted in a report of the group and,
for those still in the process of being implemented, and those which
have yet to begin implementation, recommendations would be made.
I just kept the same purpose in the charter proposed for 2018.
I see the WG-IMP providing a very much needed input to the WG-MWP,
although I may agree that there may be some overlapping between the two
WGs, when we say that one of the purposes of the WG-IMP is to make
recommendations, as some of these recommendations may fall within the
scope of the WG-MWP.
Regarding a possible merge between the two WGs, this is of course a
possible practical solution, even if I think that their goals are
complementary. But I would of course leave this decision to the MAG.
Best,
Flavio
Em 06/04/2018 18:12, avri doria escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> I question the continuing need for this Wg.
>
> For the most part any of its future possible actions were subsumed in
> the creation of the WG-MWP, so all that is left is the clerical task of
> cleaning up the tables and adding a few markers on the degree of
> completion. Any work about how to move forward from there is an WG-MWP
> task, if I understand that charter and the reason that group was created.
>
> Not that it matters, but I think any pending tasks for this group could
> be absorbed by the WG-MWP.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 04-Apr-18 14:49, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote:
>> Dear colleagues of the WG-IMP
>>
>> The MAG is now deliberating on its Working Groups for 2018.
>>
>> Our WG-IMP achieved partial results that were presented in the message
>> copied below, which we sent to the MAG by December 14, 2017. That
>> message also proposed possible next steps, in case the WG is
>> re-chartered and continued in 2018.
>>
>> I think that we all agree that this WG deserves continuation in 2018,
>> as the assessment of proposed improvements is very relevant for the
>> future of the IGF. Because of that, I suggest that we propose the
>> continuation of the WG in 2018. For this, the MAG would need to
>> approve a new charter for 2018 and choose new WG leaders.
>>
>> You find attached a first draft of a possible charter for the WG
>> continuation in 2018. I am suggesting very few adjustments to the
>> charter from 2017 (which you may also find attached), especially
>> adding a new section "Next steps", which just repeat the next steps
>> that we proposed by the end of our work in December 2017.
>>
>> I urge you to send your comments as soon as possible, as we need to
>> send a possible proposal to the MAG in the next few days, so that the
>> WG continuation may be approved during the next MAG virtual meeting,
>> in about two weeks from now.
>>
>> Please notice that none of the 2017 WG co-chairs (myself, Avri,
>> Deborah) is a MAG member in 2018, so that new WG leaders will need to
>> be appointed.
>>
>> The MAG Chair and the Secretariat will decide on the best way to
>> forward our proposal to the MAG.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Flavio
>>
>>
>>> Dear colleagues of the MAG
>>>
>>> The MAG WG on Improvements to the IGF completed a first version of a
>>> table gathering proposals of improvements to the IGF that have been
>>> proposed in previous years. You may find the table here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TdxEe0Qit3qAMCaGeyOLOl4PvUIuY3Nv5hmBsq0_OfE/edit#gid=0
>>>
>>> The table contains proposals of improvements from five different sources:
>>>
>>> 1. The CSTD WG on IGF Improvements Report (2012)
>>> 2. Implementing WSIS Outcomes: A Ten-Year Review (2015)
>>> 3. Recommendations made by UNGA on renewal of the IGF mandate
>>> (December 2015)
>>> 4. Draft report from the DESA Retreat (July 2016)
>>> 5. The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement (April 2014)
>>>
>>> These reference documents may be found here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4C745NEsGNqZWhIdlh3c1R0VGc
>>>
>>> For the recommendations proposed by the "CSTD WG on IGF Improvements"
>>> (first source above), the table already contains an assessment of
>>> their achievement. This assessment was made by a previous MAG WG in
>>> 2013 and must be updated, of course.
>>>
>>> The table includes a column "Tags", which contains tags that allow a
>>> finer classification of the recommendations (tags are still missing
>>> for some recommendations). This may be useful for a better
>>> clusterization of the recommendations and for potential mergers among
>>> similar recommendations.
>>>
>>> The table has been divided into two main parts. The bottom part
>>> contains recommendations and considerations that do not necessarily
>>> correspond to "improvements".
>>>
>>> The WG suggests that the table could be extended with recommendations
>>> coming from published submissions to consultations on IGF
>>> improvements, even if they weren't adopted.
>>>
>>> Suggested next steps for the WG include:
>>>
>>> * extend the table with recommendations coming from published
>>> submissions to consultations on IGF improvements;
>>> * revise and correct the table as needed, for instance:
>>> o make adjustments to the categories and tags in columns
>>> Category and Tags;
>>> o potentially merge similar recommendations coming from
>>> different sources;
>>> o potentially remove recommendations that are not considered
>>> relevant or consensual;
>>> o move recommendations from the bottom part of the table to the
>>> top part, or vice-versa;
>>> * launch the assessment of the progress made by the IGF towards the
>>> achievement of the various recommendations;
>>> o for that purpose, discuss and approve an adequate methodology.
>>>
>>> The continuation of this work of course depends on decisions to be
>>> taken by the new MAG.
>>>
>>> We are looking forward to your comments and suggestions.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Flavio, Avri and Deborah, WG co-chairs
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner Tel: +55-51-3308 9494
>> Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Fax: +55-51-3308 7308
>> Instituto de Informática E-mail: flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
>> Porto Alegre, Brasil URL: www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wg-imp mailing list
>> Wg-imp at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-imp_intgovforum.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wg-imp mailing list
> Wg-imp at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-imp_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-imp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20180406/6448e94d/attachment.html>
More information about the Wg-imp
mailing list