[DC] Update on joint submission to MAG - ACTION NEEDED

Wed Feb 17 16:21:10 EST 2016

Please find below the current version of the draft joint submission,
taken from Google Docs and with all edits accepted.  There are two edits
which don't have consensus, which I've marked in red:

 1. The first red part contradicts, or is at least narrower than, a part
    lower down which suggests that another alternative to the late
    afternoon/early morning split between the two halves of the main
    session, would have been an early week/late week split.  So I
    suggest deleting this red part.
 2. The second red part has a negative comment about duplication and
    waste.  I suggest deleting this part too.

Unless anyone has strong objections, let's consider the below text (sans
red parts) final.  In that case, we have only two more days to finalise
the list of signatures/endorsements.

Can everyone please take some time between now and Friday to ensure that
their endorsement is added to the document?

Thanks.

Draft Joint Submission to IGF MAG from Dynamic Coalitions

This is a joint submission made on behalf of the conveners of the
Dynamic Coalitions and other interested IGF participants named below.

  Taking Stock of the 10th IGF: What worked well? What worked not so well?

We appreciate the establishment of a main session for the Dynamic
Coalitions at the 2015 IGF in João Pessoa, which was a significant and
timely step towards creating a more formal link between these
self-organising thematicgroups, and the Internet Governance Forum as a
larger process or institution.

This was important because it is through the Dynamic Coalitions, most of
which conduct intersessional work throughout the year, that policy
options and ideas are most effectively generated. The new main session
provided a good opportunity for the Dynamic Coalitions to present and
raise awareness about the importance of their work to the larger body of
IGF participants, thereby creating the opportunity for broader feedback
on the Dynamic Coalitions efforts, and for its potential transmission
into IGF output documents.

On the other hand, because the Dynamic Coalition main session was
organised for the first time ever this year, some improvements can be
foreseen. In particular, it was found that little of the expected
substantive feedback on Dynamic Coalition work was actually received
from floor participants at the second half of the split main session,
and that indeed a lot of the feedback that was received related to the
process itself.

This indicates that some improvements to the methodology may be helpful
for next year, that would encourage more visibility of Dynamic Coalition
outputs as well as more feedback from other participants. In 2015, one
of the techniques that we employed during the session was the trial use
of Idea Rating Sheets <http://www.idearatingsheets.org/>. Although the
concept enjoyed widespread support during the main session, the lack of
resources for publicising and executing the trial, coupled with the
limited time between the two main sessions, hampered its success.
Particularly, it seems important to note that it has been very
challenging to stimulate engagement from participants, due to the sole
possibility to express their feedback after the closing of day 3 (i.e.
when the first half of the session ended) and before the opening of day
4 (i.e.when the second half of the session started).In this regard,
although it seems desirable to maintain a two-segment session in order
to stimulate participants’ reflections and discussions, it seems also
advisable to maintain the two halves in the same day, ideally separated
by lunch break or coffee break.

Nonetheless, we consider that the trial was a valid proof of concept and
that with further support from the IGF MAG in 2016, as well as a longer
lead time and broader outreach to participants, a similar deliberative
method of consultation and feedback should be employed again in 2016
with still greater success.

  Suggestions for improvements for the 11th IGF meeting in 2016?

Following the Dynamic Coalitions main session, and based upon a
suggestion made during that session, a poll was established to gather
ideas for improvements in the process if it were to be repeated in the
following year. Despite a limited response rate to this poll, the
following were the ideas that received support:

  *

    Making the paper Idea Rating Sheets available throughout the IGF
    week in an accessible place. For example, the sheets could be made
    available in the IGF Village when the IGF opens, for completion
    during the week.

  *

    Making the online Idea Rating Sheets available for a longer period
    in the run-up to the IGF and inviting all registered IGF
    participants to complete them, even before the IGF opens, and after
    it is completed with a specific closing date.

  *

    Translating the sheets into the UN and host country languages, so
    that not only those fluent in English can participate in the exercise.

  *

    ensure that all documentation are accessible for persons with
    disabilities both online and offline documents to enable
    participation from all

  *

    More publicity about the exercise, so that participants know what to
    expect, and are able to take the time to brief themselves on the
    Dynamic Coalitions’ work prior to their arrival at the IGF.

  *

    Expert facilitation of the main session.

  *

    More strategic schedule aimed at maximising participants’ feedback

  *

    Distribution of Idea rating Sheets to the participants

  *

    Allowing secret ballot in order to facilitate freedom of expression.
    In this regard,  participants’ names should not be displayed
    although names may be required to access the online Idea Rating
    Sheets.   

To these suggestions, we would add that it is important that if we again
split the main session into two halves, the first of which is for
presentations from the Dynamic Coalitions and the second being for
feedback, we would also advocate for a more strategic schedule, allowing
either a much longer gap between those half sessions, for instance
scheduling the first half on day 1 and the second one on day 3, or a
much shorter gap, for instance scheduling the two halves during the same
day and simply separating them with a coffee break or lunch break.
Having the first half session at the end of day 3 and the second at the
start of day 4 was not effective.

It is also worth noting that the Idea Rating Sheets methodology should
probably be adapted to be more precisely attuned to the IGF’s needs,
perhaps with a different name. The inventor of Idea Rating Sheets,
‎Stakeholder Engagement Consultant Jason Diceman, has indicated his
possible interest in collaborating with the Dynamic Coalitions on this.
Given its importance towards the fulfilment of the IGF’s mandate, it
would be helpful if some resources could be made available by the IGF
Secretariat and/or host country towards the expenses associated with
this exercise. More generally, the effectiveness of the outreach efforts
of the Dynamic Coalitions’ conveners would benefit from a more central
consideration of the role of Dynamic Coalitions in the programming of
the IGF, and the allocation of specific IGF resources to the
coordination of their work.

Respectfully submitted by:

  *

    Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility

  *

    Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety (TBC - awaiting for
    endorsement from DC members)

  * Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/dc_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160217/76564cf9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/dc_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160217/76564cf9/attachment.sig>