Session
Organizer 1: Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 1: Michael Nelson, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Michael Nelson, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 3: Michael Nelson, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Michael Nelson, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 3: Michael Nelson, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Format
Roundtable
Duration (minutes): 90
Format description: Since there is no panel and no selected panelists, the room has to allow for any speaker anywhere to stand up and speak. Ideally, chairs would be arranged in three or four concentric circles. That way, the moderator, Michael Nelson, could roam throughout the room giving each speaker the microphone for two minutes. This format proved very effective at an IGF session more than ten years ago (without a remote opinion). We did something similar at IGF-USA and a Internet Society INET meetings in the early 2000s.
Duration (minutes): 90
Format description: Since there is no panel and no selected panelists, the room has to allow for any speaker anywhere to stand up and speak. Ideally, chairs would be arranged in three or four concentric circles. That way, the moderator, Michael Nelson, could roam throughout the room giving each speaker the microphone for two minutes. This format proved very effective at an IGF session more than ten years ago (without a remote opinion). We did something similar at IGF-USA and a Internet Society INET meetings in the early 2000s.
Policy Question(s)
A. Why is digital policy so hard--and getting harder?
B. Which countries are coming up with the most innovative and effective ideas for addressing the most important policy issues?
C. How can countries learn from policy failures in other countries?
What will participants gain from attending this session? The audience participation nature of the session will give participants a chance to speak up and connect to other IGF participants grappling with similar policy problems. While hearing success stories will be useful, it's probably even more important to have frank conversations about policy ideas that are NOT working (because governments, in general, are not eager to highlight their failures). Each speaker will be able to tell a story, highlight a report, or mention experts that could impact policies in dozens of other countries.
Description:
One of the most important reasons we participate in Internet Governance Forums (and the NRIs) is the chance to learn about digital policy ideas that work--or don't--in countries other than our own. One way to highlight successes (and failures) is with "report cards", like the ones that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has used to "grade" countries for eleven of the thorniest digital policy issues: Connecting the unconnected Broadband competition Encryption Cybersecurity of government systems Cybersecurity of nongovernment systems Digital identity Content moderation Data localization Data architecture Data protection Online copyright (See https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/02/koreas-path-to-digital-l…) This workshop will be unusual because there will be NO panelists. This is designed to be an audience participation event where every participant (whether in-person or remote) can assign a grade for a particular policy promulgated by a particular country--and explain why (in less than two minutes per issue). Participants can also intervene for one minute to support or counter another speaker's "grade". The output of the session will be a compilation of good policy ideas (and bad ideas) that other countries can learn from. Because the session will involve any IGF participant who chooses to participate, it will be as diverse--in terms of geography, viewpoint, stakeholder group, nationality--as the entire IGF. It should provide unique opportunities for smaller countries to highlight their successes or put a spotlight on policy problems they are facing.
One of the most important reasons we participate in Internet Governance Forums (and the NRIs) is the chance to learn about digital policy ideas that work--or don't--in countries other than our own. One way to highlight successes (and failures) is with "report cards", like the ones that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has used to "grade" countries for eleven of the thorniest digital policy issues: Connecting the unconnected Broadband competition Encryption Cybersecurity of government systems Cybersecurity of nongovernment systems Digital identity Content moderation Data localization Data architecture Data protection Online copyright (See https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/02/koreas-path-to-digital-l…) This workshop will be unusual because there will be NO panelists. This is designed to be an audience participation event where every participant (whether in-person or remote) can assign a grade for a particular policy promulgated by a particular country--and explain why (in less than two minutes per issue). Participants can also intervene for one minute to support or counter another speaker's "grade". The output of the session will be a compilation of good policy ideas (and bad ideas) that other countries can learn from. Because the session will involve any IGF participant who chooses to participate, it will be as diverse--in terms of geography, viewpoint, stakeholder group, nationality--as the entire IGF. It should provide unique opportunities for smaller countries to highlight their successes or put a spotlight on policy problems they are facing.
Expected Outcomes
As mentioned above, the goal of this audience participation session is input into "report cards" that evaluate how different governments are tackling key issues that affect the Digital Transformation and the development of the global Internet. Anyone in the session (or watching the video afterwards) will be able to apply the "grades" assigned and follow up with the dozens of speakers who share their ideas.
Hybrid Format: Comments from remote participants will be handled in the same way that questions have been handled for IGF panels in recent years. Remote participants will be treated in the same manner as in-person speakers.