[DC] Draft submission to IGF MAG

Mon Feb 15 01:15:34 EST 2016

Dear all,

Can someone please clarify why  the text of the PDF attached by Marianne varies  from the google.doc version? I take it that the latest version is the google.doc version. Is this correct?

Also, what happened to the paragraph about the DC Coordination group  mentioned in the PDF version but not in the Google.doc draft? Is there an agreement to avoid mentioning this issue  at this stage or  is  it due to an oversight?

Kind regards,

Marie-laure

Marie-Laure Lemineur
Head of Programme, Combating Sexual Exploitation of Children Online

[Ecpat logo]ECPAT International
————————————-
328/1 Phaya Thai Road
Bangkok 10400,Thailand
Tel: + 66 (0) 2 215 3388
Fax: + 66 (0) 2 215 8272

http://www.ecpat.net<http://www.ecpat.net/>

De: Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk<mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>>
Fecha: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:56:35 +0100
Para: <dc at intgovforum.org<mailto:dc at intgovforum.org>>
Asunto: Re: [DC] Draft submission to IGF MAG

Dear all

Thank you Jeremy for the drafting this second submission to the MAG stocktaking from the DC intersessional.

There are some important points being made here that reiterate but also supplement those already made by the November DC Stocktaking Report.

In order not to reinvent the wheel and to provide space in this second statement to go into more detail about the way future DC main sessions can be organized, or any output tool incorporated, I would like to make the following suggestions

1) The current DC Stocktaking Document signed by all DCs pending a response from one remaining, is sent to the MAG. It is addressed to the MAG and represents all DCs to date. It was tabled at our intersessional meetings so can be sent forward. I am attaching the PDF again for good measure.

2) Alongside the November DC statement, that this second draft statement be readied as one being written on behalf of the DC Main Session Facilitators (Jeremy and Avri) with eventual endorsement from any DC or individual in the short time remaining.

Why? This second statement has a clear provenance, and for that reason can more clearly address the specifics of
a) Main session organization between one or two days
b) How any rating tool is designed and executed for future DC Main sessions
c) Underscore points already made about suitable DC representation and contributions to IGF meetings in the future, with Mexico as the next one on the agenda.

Two statements are better then one because they represent two distinct constituencies engaged in the preparation and outcomes of the first DC Main Session last year.

Now, if I can turn to my own observations on this second statement.

i) The working text is in Google docs so this precludes those of us who prefer not to register with Google for this sort of work. I cannot speak for all, but I for one do not use Google docs anymore.

ii) There is mention of one brand of survey/rating tool. This assumes that this brand is suitable for all future uses. I would beg to differ in that it is one related to a particular sort of format. As there are serious issues with how this particular brand was designed and deployed in Brazil I would suggest that a more generic term is used so that future applications of any sort of numerical rating tool, if deemed useful, can be up to the usual methodological standard of survey-based, or statistical analysis.

And one more, apologies for the long mail but have to catch up;

iii) DCs all have different timescales for consultation and endorsement procedures so if this second statement goes forward, it needs to be clearly signed off to that effect i.e. who is signing on behalf of whom.

best
MF

On 10/02/2016 01:58, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

With apologies for the delay, and as promised at the last meeting, I am
sharing a short draft submission to the IGF MAG in response to its
current taking stock consultation, which I hope we can discuss at our
phone meeting tomorrow:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14yEXAod58zK-ZqKPSgCC_OIBIntOm3wySWZ1hszH2Lk/edit?usp=sharing

It would be due for submission by the 12th. If anyone cannot (or does
not wish to) access Google Docs, please let me know and I'll email you a
copy.  Looking forward to discussing soon!

_______________________________________________
DC mailing list
DC at intgovforum.org<mailto:DC at intgovforum.org>http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org

--
Marianne Franklin, PhD
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk><mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org<http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
@netrights

_______________________________________________ DC mailing list DC at intgovforum.org<mailto:DC at intgovforum.org> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/dc_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160215/1e5b9ffa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 6AD6A9D1-F2D1-44E2-807A-224286EF4DA3[43].png
Type: image/png
Size: 2565 bytes
Desc: 6AD6A9D1-F2D1-44E2-807A-224286EF4DA3[43].png
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/dc_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160215/1e5b9ffa/attachment.png>