[DC] Draft submission to IGF MAG

Eleonora Anna MAZZUCCHI EMAZZUCCHI at unog.ch
Tue Feb 16 15:23:52 EST 2016 

 
Dear Luca,

Thanks for weighing in! I just wanted to make an informational point for everyone on the list, so that there is no misunderstanding about coordination with the MAG from the Secretariat side. 

Since the beginning of the year, the MAG has been in its annual nominations and rotation phase. This means that there are no official communications or meetings until the full membership is in place. The statement you are referring to has not been shared for that reason. 

I hope this clears up any thoughts about stocktaking contributions, which will be reviewed and discussed at the MAG's first meeting in April.

Best to all!
Eleonora 
 

 -----<LB at lucabelli.net> wrote: -----

 =======================
 To: avri at acm.org@UNGVA-WEB, dc at intgovforum.org@UNGVA-WEB
 From: <LB at lucabelli.net>
 Date: 02/16/2016 10:25PM 
 Cc: UNGVA-WEB
 Subject: Re: [DC] Draft submission to IGF MAG
 =======================
   Hi all,

I agree with Avri’s observation that this is
not an established group yet and therefore a little diplomacy is advisable.
However, my question is: was the statement shared by Marianne and signed by
almost all DC coordinators conveyed to the MAG or not?
If the answer is yes (and I think it should be
yes, knowing that the statement was drafted, signed and sent in November) then
it seems superfluous to re-send it.
If the answer is no, well I think we should understand the reason why it was not conveyed to the MAG so far and,
then, updating it considering the current situation. Perhaps a merger of
the DC coordinators letter + Jeremy’s text would be the most workable solution.
  
What do you think?

Best
Luca


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD 
Researcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro 
Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
Founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality 
Co-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [DC] Draft submission to IGF MAG
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Date: Mon, February 15, 2016 12:58 pm
To: dc at intgovforum.org

Hi,

Well I thought that our method of operation was consensus.  Do we have
consensus? "Overwhelming majority" is not consensus.  Not everyone
signed your statement and some had objections.  I think that it need to
remain the statement of those who signed it and not be called soething
it is not.

I agree with Markus when he says that this statement sprung up quickly
and without full transparency of the group.  I think to try and send
this in now as a statement of the group is unwise and is something that
the MAG, once it is constituted could well challenge.  If we want to
create a structure that can be trusted to represent the consensus of the
DCs, then we should come up with a consensus processes, one that has
been discussed with the MAG,  before we start sending letters to the MAG
as if we were a well formed group.  We are not that yet.

avri



On 15-Feb-16 12:45, Marianne Franklin wrote:
> Dear Markus
>
> Happy to continue the conversation. To continue clarifying as this DC
> intersessional list in a new constellation and in the process of being
> formalised.
>
> 1) The DC list is primarily made up of DC representatives, those who
> provided input and presented the DC work at both Main Session are the
> primary constituency. Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> a) For this reason, the November Statement represents the overwhelming
> majority of DCs present as above, all signatories are on the final
> letter (the etherpad was the initial drafting so is not complete, the
> PDF you have is the most recent version).
>
> b)) Any remaining signatories; the DC for persons with disabilities
> has been conferring over the November document and if any other DCs
> were left off they are welcome to sign on.
>
> 2) This intersessional list, called the DC list and run from the
> Secretariat, also comprises others, yourself as Chair and the 2015 DC
> Main Session facilitators, and IGF Secretariat representatives. We are
> convening here as distinct constituencies in that regard under this DC
> rubric but this is not ipso facto the same as speaking on behalf of
> all DCs, or our respective DC constituencies.
>
> As the November statement is one on behalf of all those DCs who signed
> on, this process could not be subsumed, nor need it be subsumed under
> the intersessional list. This is not a conflict, it is a practical
> reality and underscores the committment and quality of input of all
> those DCs whose work provided the basis for these inaugural Main
> Sessions. The Consultative Platform and the rating sheet exercise were
> two ways to garner feedback to DC work presented at these sessions.
>
> 3) The discussion is now about a second statement being drafted by the
> Main Session Facilitators to which DCs are being asked to contribute
> on the intersessional list. Much of the November statement is being
> repeated in this second text so it appears superfluous to requirements
>
> The new, second statement has its own points to make and is, as is
> made clear already, in the name of the 2015 Main Session facilitators.
>
> Hence my motion that two statements go forward so better to reflect
> the make-up of the intersessional list that we are in the process of
> formalizing. One statement is complete and open for any remaining DCs
> to sign if they wish.
>
> This is transparency at its best to my mind.
>
> 6) Finally, our consultations on the DC intersessional list include
> discussions about representation, process, and transparency so I
> appreciate this opportunity to move that conversation forward.
>
> best wishes
> MF
>
> On 15/02/2016 11:23, Markus Kummer wrote:
>> Dear Marianne,
>>
>> I fully understand the nature of the document. Just a small
>> correction:not all DCs signed up — two did not!
>>
>> Many thanks for sharing the link to the etherpad document.This
>> addresses in part my comments regarding the transparency of the
>> process, but not fully. I was not aware of this link and I don’t
>> think an invite was ever sent out on the DC list. I take it that the
>> process is archived in your DC archives. This may need further
>> discussion, but I for one think that it is confusing if any one DC
>> holds the archives for a common process. I would have thought that
>> any common activity would be archived on the DC list and supported by
>> the IGF Secretariat, as is the entire process since Joao Pessoa.
>>
>> My main point however was that the stocktaking statement has been
>> overtaken by our discussion since then. Lastly, I fully agree with
>> your point of order. It is definitely preferred that each DC has its
>> own internal process to determine whether it can sign on to the
>> statement prepared by Jeremy.
>>
>> I look forward to a continued constructive discussion on how to
>> improve and strengthen the DC coordination process!
>>
>> Best regards
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> On 15 Feb 2016, at 10:31, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Markus
>>>
>>> The misunderstanding appears to continue. I did not submit a paper
>>> in my own name.
>>>
>>> The November Stocktaking Statement was drafted, conferred over, and
>>> then edited and signed by all DC signatories. I simply sent it
>>> through on behalf of all DCs.
>>>
>>> The etherpad is open for view if confirmation of this process is
>>> needed; https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DCs_Stocktaking_Statement
>>>
>>> The signed statement was indeed forwarded to the DC meeting, and was
>>> noted as received. My own email archives confirm this as do records
>>> of the DC meetings.
>>>
>>> It is not clear at all how the impression has been given that the
>>> November statement was done "quickly, with fresh impressions
>>> immediately after the meeting. However, in terms of process it does
>>> not live up to the standards of transparency and openness we hope to
>>> adhere to collectively.".
>>>
>>> A point of order too, if I may. All of us on this DC list are
>>> representing our respective DCs. We cannot speak in the name of
>>> others without full consultation at least with respective steering
>>> committees.
>>>
>>> The November statement sums up the main points adequately and was
>>> with input from a wider range of participants.
>>>
>>> This new statement is useful too. I was not suggesting otherwise.
>>>
>>> best
>>> MF
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/02/2016 10:12, Markus Kummer wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> We seem to create some unnecessary misunderstandings. The paper
>>>> Jeremy produced is the result of the stocktaking process we started
>>>> after the Brazil meeting. We held a number of calls, all documented
>>>> on the CD list, and agreed to produce a paper as an input into the
>>>> call for contributions issued by the IGF Secetariat. We also agreed
>>>> to continue working on the draft TOR for the coordination group
>>>> with the aim to conclude this process well in advance of the April
>>>> MAG meeting/open consultations.
>>>>
>>>> The paper Marianne mentioned provided a useful input into our
>>>> collective process. However, in many ways it has been overtaken by
>>>> events, as we started discussing how to set up the coordination
>>>> group and we also discussed what worked well and what worked less
>>>> well at the DC session last November. Jeremy’s paper sums up this
>>>> discussion. We have a few more days for DCs to sign up to this
>>>> paper — either as DC or, if there is not sufficient time for
>>>> internal consultation, in their individual capacity.
>>>>
>>>> I would therefore suggest focusing on Jeremy’s paper and not
>>>> confusing matters by submitting two papers with slightly
>>>> conflicting messages. Furthermore, I understand that the other
>>>> paper was produced quickly, with fresh impressions immediately
>>>> after the meeting. However, in terms of process it does not live up
>>>> to the standards of transparency and openness we hope to adhere to
>>>> collectively. It was never submitted for comments on the DC list
>>>> and it should all be noted that two DCs (and not just one) did not
>>>> sign up to it.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Feb 2016, at 09:31, Marianne Franklin
>>>> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Marie-Laure as I too have been unclear. Just to clarify and
>>>>> so forgo any further misunderstandings.
>>>>>
>>>>> The PDF I attached was a resending of a Stocktaking statement that
>>>>> all DCs prepared and tabled at the first meeting after the IGF in
>>>>> Brazil. It is dated 25 November and the minutes show that it has
>>>>> been tabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Google.doc text is one that Jeremy drafted, a second document
>>>>> in fact and from the point of view of the two DC Main Session
>>>>> facilitators.
>>>>>
>>>>> The November DC Stocktaking Statement has already been tabled,
>>>>> signed by all DCs pending word back from Andrea. So then it s
>>>>> ready to forward to the MAG if it has not been already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> MF
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15/02/2016 07:15, Marie-Laure Lemineur wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *<Mail Attachment.png>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>
>>>>>> Fecha: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:56:35 +0100
>>>>>> Para: <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.orghttp://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>
>>>>>> @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
>>>>>> @netrights
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ DC mailing list
>>>>>> DC at intgovforum.org <mailto:DC at intgovforum.org>
>>>>>> <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_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>
>>>>> @GloComm
>>>>> https://twitter.com/GloComm
>>>>> http://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
>>>>> @netrights
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> DC mailing list
>>>>> DC at intgovforum.org <mailto:DC at intgovforum.org>
>>>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> DC mailing list
>>>> 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>
>>> @GloComm
>>> https://twitter.com/GloComm
>>> http://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
>>> @netrights
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
> @GloComm
> https://twitter.com/GloComm
> http://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
> @netrights
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DC mailing list
> DC at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

More information about the DC mailing list