[IGFmaglist] IGF Reform Proposals

Sat Oct 19 10:22:49 EDT 2013

It seems there is some sensitivity to the MAG as the MAG discussing and proposing improvements, enhancements, reforms, etc. given it's narrow mandate/role when the IGF was first called for in the Tunis Agenda. It's also not particularly open or transparent for this small group to do this alone.

Patrick offers some good topics for discussion though. Perhaps we can take advantage of his effort and ask him (and others) to present ideas in the open mic session on Friday. This would have the benefit of being open to others and the discussion could be summarised into a report and then shared via the IGF website.

Just a thought.

Fiona

________________________________
From: Igfmaglist <igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org>
To: Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com>; Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au>
Cc: igfmag <igf_members at intgovforum.org>; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Sent: Sat Oct 19 08:20:25 2013
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF Reform Proposals

Patrick, Chris, et al,

I agree that these issues should be discussed, and think that it would be a missed opportunity if we (not necessarily as MAG if that's not in our mandate, but as broader community) did not take them on while in Bali.

I support the idea of organizing a session on this topic, or at least an open forum.

Sanja

Sanja Tatic Kelly

Project Director, Freedom on the Net

Freedom House

________________________________
From: Igfmaglist [igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] on behalf of Patrick Ryan [patrickryan at google.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 8:07 AM
To: Chris Disspain
Cc: igfmag; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF Reform Proposals

Chris,

Excellent questions----since there is no written scope for the MAG, the intent is to focus on structural changes for the IGF itself. In fact, I don't think that any of the suggested issues are in the mandate of the MAG at all (even though the "mandate" is unwritten), and certainly not in the MAG's control to change.

I'm intentionally avoiding the discussion of "program committee" issues (which is the MAG's main historical function). These reforms are important but are already part of a healthy debate and being driven by other proposals (such as Fiona's from a few weeks ago).

So yes, the UN writ large is the organization that would need to implement and effectuate the reform proposals here, as heavy as a lift as that may seem.  In terms of other areas of agreement with how I interpret your comments:

 *   I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should not use our role in the MAG to force any discussion here, and especially not to limit the discussion to MAG members---starting it with the MAG is fine so long as it's not exclusively there, and expressly inclusive of other stakeholders.
 *   I also agree that the discussion needs to happen in the right arena (not sure what that is, but my instinct tells me clearly that assuming a later meeting or opportunity will arise is not going to work).
 *   I love your suggestion of organizing a last-minute session here in Bali to discuss this---one that's inclusive of the broader community, which I think is also a version of Angelic's suggestion earlier.

I think a core question is: can we organize such a meeting while we're here in Bali with the community while we're here (using remote participation to include others)?  Maybe this is where the MAG can act, i.e., by exercising a strong voice in the MAG's role as a program committee to get space, time, and agenda to host the discussion this week.

Patrick

P.S. all of the foundational documents that were available on .pdfs on the IGF's page are redirecting somewhere else, like the IGF Project Document and other pdfs that were available here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=51&Itemid=68>.  Hopefully this can get fixed?

------
patrick ryan
public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations
patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com> | +1.512.751.5346

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:
Hi Patrick, All,

So, here's my take on all of this:

I guess you wrote this document - what is your goal for it? Are you a) aiming to get input from all interested parties and then do something with it or b) are you intending that it be developed into a MAG position or c) something else.

I woud have no problem giving you input providing that I know where this is intended to head.

If the goal is to get to a MAG position then I have some real concerns. I think most of the points you have raised are outside the scope of the MAG and so I'm uncomfortable with the MAG as a group coming to some consensus position on these points and then lobbying to make it so. And, irrespective of my discomfort, I doubt such an approach would be effective. The MAG's time would be better spent concentrating on its mandate and doing its job.

If the goal is to get IGF interested folks from all areas to coalesce around ways to improve the IGF then that's fine but I would counsel against using your position as a MAG member for that purpose. And I would advise against the MAG formally meeting to discuss this paper.

I'm not seeking to close down a debate that I think is critical but rather to ensure it takes place in the right arena. I wonder whether there's any possibility of organising a last minute session open to all to discuss IGF improvements? Or maybe there is already a session that can be used for that?

Cheers,

Chris

On 19/10/2013, at 19:02 , Patrick Ryan wrote:

Markus,

That's a fair point of clarification, and I don't think that discussion needs to be in a MAG meeting, although it could be, although your concerns about timing are noted. Truth is, there seems to never be the right time to discuss these reform issues (they're difficult and all a really heavy lift), so I think we need to seize the moment (and multiple moments, for that matter).  From my perspective, the discussions must start in earnest now, and while it would be ideal to do it in a setting with all of us together, it's also possible to do it by email and in the doc---although somewhat inefficient, that also enables the participants who were unable to make it here this year, and for non MAG members.  Thank you for your comments here by email as it already helps to advance the discussion and to hear your perspective on a couple of the points.

To your question about format, the proposal is in Google Docs not because it's a proprietary format. It should work on any browser through HTML 5, which is open sourced, and using the link eliminates the need for version control.  If anybody would like to download and store a version of the document in the version at any point in time, it can be done by opening the doc (available here<https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1IpseDEXj9F25-RQkJWX6ERYl6_K3-jlC0HpTYuqFDCY/edit>), then File > Download As > then selecting whichever local format you prefer (Word, RTF, ODT, TXT or HTML).

Sincerely,

Patrick

P.S. I just finished this email as you walked by to say hello in the hotel lobby!  Would love to discuss live if you have a minute now.

------
patrick ryan
public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations
patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com> | +1.512.751.5346

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org<mailto:kummer at isoc.org>> wrote:
Dear all,

It will not be possible to hold a MAG meeting on Sunday morning, as the rooms will not be available and, also, the Secretariat fully engaged with last minute preparations.

Also, I don't think that we will be able to discuss Patrick's reform proposals at our meetings in Bali - the MAG meetings will be very short and we will have to make best possible use of them to run the meeting.

However, I am happy to organise a call to discuss the paper once the meeting is over. Only two preliminary comments:

I am sure that we would all support an unlimited mandate for the IGF. However, this is out of scope for the MAG and, if anything, would be counterproductive.

I would also like to recall that the IGF Secretariat repeatedly urged the MAG to come up with a formula for selecting its members and time and again the MAG preferred to sticking to the current practice, leaving it what MAG Members used to term "the black box". I for one would strongly support any effort to develop a more transparent formula. This is clearly within the scope of the MAG.

Lastly, may I ask Patrick to send us the document he circulated as an attachment rather than using proprietary web services.

Best regards
Markus

On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:18 PM, angelic40 at gmail.com<mailto:angelic40 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Patrick,
>
> Yes, I am all for a discussion whether it is during one of the MAG get tot hers or just an evening over dinner or so. I will not arrive in time for a weekend session, but if I make it to Bali, I will be available starting Thursday morning.
> I agree that an online discussion/ participation should be part of it.
>
> Looking forward to participating in this discussion
> Angelic
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com>> wrote:
>
>> Angelic,
>>
>> That's a really good question---we don't actually have anything set up to discuss this, although I'm hopeful that we can address it at one of the MAG meetings that has been set.  Alternatively, for those that are arriving this weekend, I would love to get together----say, on Sunday morning----to host a discussion.  I also think that it will be important to see if we can collect some of the views of colleagues that have not been able to make it to Bali for various reasons (such as the visa situation), and so I suspect that the discussion should also include some online elements (email, maybe we create another Doc that people can collaborate on) so that we can hear their views.
>>
>> If you or anybody has any thoughts on that, I would love to hear them.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> ------
>> patrick ryan
>> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations
>> patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com> | +1.512.751.5346<tel:%2B1.512.751.5346>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Angelic del Castilho <angelic40 at gmail.com<mailto:angelic40 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for this information. Is there a specific date set during the IGF in Bali for discussing this document or is the discussion only through comments online for now?
>>
>> Have a great day!
>> Angelic
>>
>> Angelic Caroline Alihusain-del Castilho
>> POB 3036
>> Wanica
>> Suriname
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com>> wrote:
>> Dear MAG Colleagues,
>>
>> As we head into the IGF this year, I wanted to share some thoughts on the "top five" issues for IGF reform.  The document is in a draft form and could benefit form the thoughts and input from all of us.  It's not a private document, so feel free to share.  It's not a Google position although as I've mentioned to many, many of my colleagues at Google are very keen to make sure that we engage in serious reform discussions----starting next week.
>>
>> It's never easy to propose reform discussions of this kind (it's hard in any organization) and I genuinely hope that the suggestions here will be received by the UN and IGF colleagues in the positive spirit that they are intended.  We all believe strongly in the IGF and it's because of our belief in it that we should be talking about how to make it stronger.
>>
>> The document is available here.  Comments are really welcome and encouraged, either by email or by using the comment function of Google Docs.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> ------
>> patrick ryan
>> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations
>> patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com> | +1.512.751.5346<tel:%2B1.512.751.5346>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20131019/7d39830d/attachment.html>