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

Wed Feb 24 21:35:05 EST 2016

On behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance, I too
endorse Christina's suggestion on the way forward.

Best
Bishakha
On 25 Feb 2016 01:40, "Andrea Saks" <andrea at andreasaks.onmicrosoft.com>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I agree totally with Christina.
>
> All the best
>
> ANDREA
>
>
> From her iPhone!
>
> *Andrea J Saks*
>
> International Telecommunications Specialist for the Deaf
>
> Chairman ITU JCA-AHF (Joint Coordinating Activity on Accessibility and
> Human Factors)
>
> Coordinator IGF DCAD  (Dynamic Coalition  on Accessibility and Disability)
>
> Tel +44 1242 820 800 <+44%201242%20820%20800> voice
> Tel +44 1241 820 623 <+44%201241%20820%20623> text
> Fax +44 1242 821 171 <+44%201242%20821%20171>
> mobile + 44 7956 222916 <+%2044%207956%20222916>(UK) always available
> with voice mail and SMS
>
> mobile + 41 7930 46152 <+%2041%207930%2046152>(CH) only when in
> Switzerland and  no voice mail
>
> Cell +1 425 233 5308 only when in USA but SMS globally.
> emailandrea at andreasaks.onmicrosoft.com <asaks at waitrose.com> and
> andrea.saks at ties.itu.int
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Feb 2016, at 19:13, Christina de Castell <
> Christina.de.Castell at ifla.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the coordinators of the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in
> Libraries, we support the suggestion from Markus to reconsider and update
> the first statement for submission. I'd like to explain our confusion, and
> why we had not signed the recent submission prepared by Jeremy.
>
> We had participated in drafting the November statement, with many other
> Dynamic Coalitions, and were signatories to it. Like others, we thought
> that this statement had been sent to the MAG, and we understood it to be
> the feedback on behalf of the Dynamic Coalitions on the structure of the
> main session and our participation.
>
> The statement that Jeremy drafted as a facilitator arrived on the day of
> the DC call February 10. I participated in the discussion on the call with
> an assumption that it was a statement about using idea rating sheets. A
> very rapid turnaround on signatories was requested, initially by February
> 15.
>
> Subsequently on the list, we learned that the November statement did not
> go to the MAG, and that the statement on idea rating sheets would be the
> only submission from the DCs. We feel that the November statement, drafted
> by the DCs jointly, is a better representation of our recommendations
> related to the facilitation of the main session.
>
> As noted above and by Markus, we agree that it should incorporate any
> necessary edits to reflect discussions that have occurred on the calls
> since November.
>
> Christina
> Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries
>
> Christina de Castell
> Manager, Policy and Advocacy
> International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)
> Prins-Willem Alexanderhof 5
> 2595 BE The Hague, Netherlands
>
> +31 63 8440654 <+31%2063%208440654>
> christina.de.castell at ifla.org
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:34 AM -0800, "Markus Kummer" <
> markuskummer at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Luca, all,
>
> As far as I know, nobody has submitted the first statement. When Marianne
> submitted the statement to the list, she wrote "we hope that these ideas
> and observations will be of use, and look forward to continuing the
> discussion as we reflect on the achievements of this year's IGF and move
> forward towards the future." Indeed they were of use and, as I wrote, we
> built on them and have started drafting Terms of Reference for the
> Coordinating Group. The paper presents as snapshot that has been overtaken
> by events and some of the points raised are out of date, such as a
> reference to a 31 December deadline.
>
> Let me also state that there was no unilateral decision not to send that
> statement, there was rather a decision to ask Jeremy to draft a paper
> reflecting our discussions. The first statement was only mentioned once
> Jeremy's paper was circulated. Having said that, we can ask the Secretariat
> to draft a new version, integrating the main points of both papers and
> leaving out the more assertive demands.
>
> I fully agree with your description of the MAG as a programme committee.
> However, in this role the MAG has the power to decide whether or not to
> give the DC an automatic slot, as has been the practice in the first 10
> years of the IGF. The MAG can make this conditional on the DCs fulfilling
> some basic common criteria, and that is why we are taking a pro-active
> approach developing common rules and procedures. You are right that there
> is no danger of a MAG veto on the coordination group, quite the opposite:
> a well developed proposal how the DCs plan to go about would go a long way
> convincing the MAG that the DCs are able to keep their house in order and
> are entitled to their slot, main session and, above all, due recognition
> for their intersessional work.
>
> Let's see what the Secretariat can come up with and I am happy to discuss
> the first statement on the next call point by point.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Best regards
> Markus
>
> ------------------------------
> From: LB at lucabelli.net
> To: markuskummer at outlook.com; ocl at gih.com; dc at intgovforum.org
> Subject: RE: [DC] Update on joint submission to MAG - ACTION NEEDED
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:18:55 -0700
>
> Dear Markus and all,
>
> Thanks for your reflections. Am I right in assuming that now there are two
> different statements being submitted to the MAG? Or can we still chose
> which one should we submit?
>
> As I have already stated, I agree with Avri’s consideration regarding the
> fact that we are not yet an established group and therefore I tend to
> second the cautious approach that has been proposed. However, if I had knew
> that the original “DC Stocktaking Statement” has not been submitted yet, I
> would have preferred to build a consensus statement using the text shared
> by Marianne on 25 November and signed by almost all DC coordinators, rather
> than starting a new one. Indeed I confess I find it quite uncomfortable to
> be in a quite schizophrenic situation where we have two DC coordinators
> statements conveyed to the MAG.
>
> To me, it would have been more efficient, transparent and consensus-based
> to try making the original DC Stocktaking Statement more ‘diplomatic’,
> rather than deciding not to send it (as stressed by Eleonora “The paper
> has not yet been submitted from what we have seen on our end”) and then
> develop-another one in a rather hasted way. IMHO, it would have been fair
> to discuss the possibility of not conveying the original DC Stocktaking
> Statement or to suggest modifications of the less ‘diplomatic’ points,
> rather than taking the unilateral and decision not to convey it.
>
> Personally, I have no problem with the content of both texts but I think
> we should choose one. I suggest sharing a quick survey to decide which
> statement to submit. Subsequently we should to solve this procedural point
> at our next virtual meeting.
>
> Lastly, I would like to stress that the MAG is a *programme committee*,
> whose role is to identify the IGF main theme and chose workshop proposals.
> Hence, although the MAG may consider that a DC main session should not be
> included in the next IGF programme (though this would be a rather
> questionable choice) let’s make clear that the MAG has no authority to
> “challenge” the self-organisation of a DC coordination group that will
> exclusively deal with DC matters. Although we are not an established group
> yet, as you rightly point out, the MAG veto on a DC coordination council
> would have no justifications nor any legal/regulatory basis.
>
> Therefore, I suggest rapidly deciding what statement to submit, while
> keeping on working towards a sound proposal for a DC Coordination Group.
>
> 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] Update on joint submission to MAG - ACTION NEEDED
> From: Markus Kummer <markuskummer at outlook.com>
> Date: Tue, February 23, 2016 12:39 pm
> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, "dc at intgovforum.org"
> <dc at intgovforum.org>
>
> Dear Olivier, all,
>
> Indeed, when Eleonore wrote last, the paper had not been submitted, but
> now it has. As Eleonore wrote earlier, there is still a possibility of
> tweaking the paper -- the deadline has been extended until tomorrow, also
> to to others who requested such an extension.
>
> My apologies if I wasn't sufficiently clear. The Secretariat's first
> version of the synthesis paper will reflect, presumably in a footnote, all
> endorsements received by cob this coming Friday. A revised version of the
> synthesis paper will be issued a week prior to the April meeting. This
> final version will be updated and include all endorsements received after
> the 26 February deadline.
>
> I am sorry if I present you with" a choice between a rock and a hard
> place", as you put it. This seems mainly due to the fact that we seem to
> continue to have different opinions on the status of the earlier paper. I
> made the point earlier that the other paper presented a snapshot of the
> discussion among the DCs immediately after the Joao Pessoa meeting. We used
> it as a basis for our discussion since then. As the discussion has moved
> on, it is not surprising that it contains some views that differ from the
> first paper. Jeremy's paper focuses on how to deal with a DC main session.
> The intention is to put down a marker to advocate for another such session
> and suggest some improvements based on last year's experience. We did  not
> want to overload the boat and deliberately left out the collaboration and
> coordination between DCs.
>
> However, we attach equal importance to this aspect. We built on the
> proposal contained in the first paper to create a coordinating committee
> and we have started drafting Terms of Reference for this committee. The
> intention is to conclude this process next month and present them to the
> MAG at the April meeting.
>
> Let me take a step back and look at where we started this process: there
> were some concerns voiced in the broader community about the work of the
> DCs. To put it bluntly: it was felt that there was a lack of common rules
> and principles. In order to remedy this perceived weakness, we have two
> options:
> a) to be proactive and develop common rules and principles; or
> b) leave it to the MAG to impose some rules on the DCs.
> It was my understanding that the general feeling among the DCs was that
> option a) was the preferred way forward. This requires some caution and I
> think we are on right path with the process we have embarked on. In essence
> it captures much of what is contained in the first paper.
>
> Your comments as regards the process are well taken and for sure there is
> room for improvement. However, this also applies to the other paper. My
> main concern about that paper is that it is too political and could
> therefore risks being counterproductive with some of its demands. I tend to
> agree with Avri who wrote a week ago, and I quote: " that  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. " Unquote.
>
> We are not there yet, but I think we are moving in the right direction.
> We are planning to hold another call next month and I hope you will be able
> to join us on the call.
>
> Best regards
> Markus
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Subject: Re: [DC] Update on joint submission to MAG - ACTION NEEDED
> To: markuskummer at outlook.com; dc at intgovforum.org
> From: ocl at gih.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:13:29 +0100
>
> Dear Markus,
>
> thank you for your kind message. My comments are in-line:
>
> On 23/02/2016 11:02, Markus Kummer wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Meanwhile, the paper has been officially submitted. It will be reflected
> in a synthesis report the Secretariat intends to prepare.
>
>
> I am *very* surprised, Markus. Just this Saturday Eleonora Mazzucchi said:
>
> The paper has not yet been submitted from what we have seen on our end. In
> that regard, I wanted to respond to Nicolo's request: the extension until
> Wednesday is also fine. This will allow a little more time to refine the
> text.
>
> Actual endorsements, as I said above, can still be accepted after the
> submission!
>
> Please be so kind to clarify this.
>
>
> All endorsements received by cob this coming Friday will be reflected in
> the first version of the synthesis paper that is expected to be posted next
> week. You can either add them on the google doc Jeremy has been preparing
> or make it known on this list (or use both of these options). The
> endorsements can be on behalf of the respective DC or in your personal
> capacity, should you not have sufficient time to get the approval of the DC.
>
>
> Understood. But I can let you know that, having signed the previous paper
> that was signed by nearly all the DCs, I am going to have a hard time
> supporting a paper that says exactly the opposite when it comes to
> organising the DC sessions.
> I am also disappointed that none of the proposals of the previous paper
> have been carried over to the one that's being submitted. Summarising, the
> current paper's only focussing on idea rating sheets & the collecting of
> feedback. What about the coordination of all the DCs? What about helping
> the DCs produce tangible output?
>
>
> There will still be time to add names to the list (or "up-grade" your
> personal endorsement to a full DC endorsement) after that deadline, as the
> Secretariat agreed to keep the list open. An up-dated version of the
> synthesis paper will be posted one week ahead of the April MAG meeting/open
> consultations and will include all endorsements received by then.
>
> Your endorsement will add weight to the paper and the process we have
> started!
>
>
> I would love to add weight to the paper and process that's started, but I
> would point out that the process which has been used to produce the current
> paper is pretty poor. A first draft sent to the mailing list on 9th Feb and
> the paper submitted by 23rd Feb? That's 14 days! In the future, please
> respect the fact that DCs are run by volunteers and that we have daytime
> jobs, that our members have daytime jobs too and that 14 days is way too
> short a time for significant feedback. It is the same thing I have been
> arguing with the ICANN Board regarding public comment periods: 40 days is
> barely enough to obtain real input from the edges. Has the proposed paper
> been sent to the DC mailing list in January, not only would we have had
> more feedback and input from the DCs represented here, but we would have
> probably seen more content in the paper and an actual active support by DCs.
>
> Sadly, right now, it's a choice between a rock and a hard place.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
> (acting DC-CIV Chair)
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DC mailing list
> 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/20160225/1caddc46/attachment.html>