[IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue May 24 15:00:40 EDT 2016
My comments are in CAPS below.
There seems to be agreement on a couple of issues.
1. We should more formally adopt the role and title of “organiser” for those MAG members who do all the hard work of getting a session off the ground. That includes workshops, Main sessions, posters, or any other format that we use. We should aim to publish the names of the “organising committee” as part of the programme. That will reflect credit where its due, and may also assist with the employer-funding visibility issue that seems well understood. It distinguishes that work and those workers from those people actually appearing at the microphone.
THIS SOUNDS VERY USEFUL BUT AGAIN, WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT MAG MEMBERS ORGANIZING WORKSHOPS, THAT WE THEN RATE AND APPROVE. I AGREE AS FAR AS THE MAIN SESSIONS ARE CONCERNED.
A MAG MEMBER THAT COACHES A WORKSHOP MAY NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES, AND A MAG MEMBER THAT IS PART OF AN ORGANIZATION, WHETHER CS OR NGO, OR TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, OR BIZ THAT IS DRIVING WORKSHOPS THOUGH THEIR OFFICIAL WORKING ROLE, SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTING. A MAG MEMBER THAT INFORMALLY COACHES THE ORIGINATION OF A WORKSHOP BUT HAS NOT AN ONGOING ROLE MAY STILL VOTE, IN MY VIEW.
AND, YES, THIS MAY BE A BIT OF SELF GOVERNANCE.
BUT MAG MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE ORGANIZING WORKSHOPS AND THEN RATING THEM
2. There seems general agreement that MAG members should not be appearing at the microphone- or not much. Some are in favour of a ban, with an application for occasional dispensation. Others prefer something a bit less restrictive. My experience as a regulator suggests people actually do work better when there is a clear rule to follow. It can be published widely, form part of the induction process, and lessens confusion.
I AM NOT SO HARSH ABOUT A MAG MEMBER APPEARING AT THE MICROPHONE. THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM ASSUMING A MODERATOR ROLE OR CO MODERATOR ROLE, ESPECIALLY IN A SESSION THAT WAS ORGANIZED BY A LARGER GROUP OF MAG-ITES, OR MAG+.
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT YOU WERE EVER A REGULATOR, SO AM LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THAT! JUST KIDDING. [HMM, CHAIR OF INTERNETNZ; AND THEN CHAIR OF ICANN, AND THEN... -- NO REGULATOR STUFF IN THAT LINE UP]
WE SHOULD NOT IGNORE THAT WE ARE EVOLVING AND THAT FRANKLY, SOMETIMES THERE MAY BE THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY.
3. Given that this is an evolutionary process, perhaps we can build on the success of the past use of the 3+1 concept. We already have a paper on Main Sessions that says MAG members can appear on one session. If we add the rider that this should not be a session that they are on the organising committee for, perhaps we can keep that.
I SUPPORT, AS LONG AS YOU SHOW SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT ALLOWS FOR AN EXEMPTION.
4. For Workshops and other formats, we could limit the number of speaking options to 2, again with the rider that these should not be sessions for which the MAG member is on the organising committee or is otherwise a sponsor.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD STICK WITH 3. I DID NOT SEE THAT THERE WAS AN EMPIRICAL SURVEY THAT ASKED WHETHER THAT WORKED, AND WHEN IT WAS NOT ADHERED TO, AND BEFORE MOVING TO TWO, I ASK FOR THAT. PERSONALLY, I FIND THAT TRYING TO LIMIT MYSELF TO ONLY TWO, THEN RESULTED IN A LATE INVITATION TO FILL IN AND MAKE SURE THAT A WORKSHOP WAS BALANCED, AND I DID NOT HAVE TO ASK FOR DISPENSATION, BUT COULD JUST 'MAKE IT SO'.BUT STAYED WITHIN THE RULE OF THREE.
5. Everyone is free to seek dispensation for when a special circumstance arises. I suggest the MAG Chair be entrusted with making those decisions. If they feel the need, they can consult with staff, form a committee etc according to the need.
I THINK THAT STICKING WITH THREE FREES THE MAG CHAIR FROM BEING TOO DEEP IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM, AND IN FACT IF THIS IS SUPPORTED IT SHOULD BE THE SECRETARIAT, NOT THE MAG CHAIR.
In summary, we will enhance the visibility of the organising role, and lessen the speaking role to a narrow 2+1 format, with dispensation available if needed.
Does that have general support - or at least acceptance?
Further comments welcomed.
On 21/05/2016, at 8:00 pm, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com> wrote:Thank you Flavio, Marilyn, Virat, Petter and all for the clarification. I am now clear in my mind and for this reason i agree on all points, especially continuing the policy from 2015 on MAG member participation.
CheersWISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/Ghana Open Data Initiative Project.ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member,Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member,OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dkfacebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
I was the originator of the initial discussion that led to creating the 3+1 as a standing agreement when I came in as a MAG member, and many other MAG members agreed. That is what led to the '3+1'.
I did this because as a non MAG member, I saw many workshops with MAG members submitting workshops, or using their affiliated entities to submit workshop proposals, and then having to select them and then being speakers, or moderators. And the annual IGF was then having the same co moderators over and over, year after year, for the main sessions.
We need to remember that IGF and MAG has been evolving and in perhaps earlier years, this overwhelming role of the MAG was well intentioned, and well meaning, and we were perhaps struggling to find speakers, and co moderators, who could get funding to attend.
However, in 2014, and 2015, we have made progress and in my personal view, I think that the 3+1 remains realistic, and pragmatic, and does not penalize MAG members too much. I realize that we each, as MAG members are doing a tremendous amount of work. But I continue to insist that MAG members not submit workshop proposals, and I hope that those on the MAG with affiliations will do their best to only be coaches
I also understand the comment made about having to justify some kind of involvement if one is gaining support from a community, or an academic entity to spend the time necessary, but I think that we all need to realize and ensure support that MAG members are appointed by the UN SecGen and need to convince themselves, and their employer, whomever that is -- whether business, government, NGO/CS, or university -- that there is a need to be as independent as possible.
I still think that MAG's purpose is to coach, and help outreach to new speakers for both main sessions and workshops.
However, I am realistic that if we set an objective of no more than one main session as a speaker, or co moderator, this may be the most realistic, while sticking to the no workshops submitted by a MAG member. I know that our job is really to encourage the development of workshops through reaching out to networks, but we can all commit to not rating workshops that we have direct relationships with, as a standard practice, and commit to the no more than one main session.
Look, this is more work, frankly, than doing it ourselves.
I realize that identifying and coaching is more work than being the experts we are, but we are on the MAG for only a short cycle, and the more we coach, and enrich participation, the more the IGF grows and is sustainable.
So, here's to the no more than 3 speaking roles on workshops and no more than 1 main session per MAG member. Even at that and here is the math:
50 MAG members X 3 is 150 workshops with MAG speakers50 MAG members X 1 for main sessions could be 50 of the slots in whatever the number of the main sessions turns out to be: 6 or 8: that would mean that if main sessions have 6-10 speakers, X 6 so 60 at max, up to 50 speakers from MAG might be proposed. I know that we are not headed there, but we really should think about perhaps no more than 3-4 MAG members per main session, and showing cause why the MAG member is the best speaker,along the lines of the 'exception'.
I have proposed a SDG consultation main session and am following up on that, but consistent with the WSIS+10 session, which I was privileged to co organize with Brazil, Lea, and others, we invited different moderators and took the role of rapporteurs.
I am not suggesting that a MAG member is never the best moderator, or co facilitator, but I do urge that we as MAG members embrace the no more than 3 workshops [unless there is such fallout of a moderator or speaker at least minute that a MAG member is needed to support a workshop as an exception -- that does happen and if we are not 'full up' on 3 then we can be the angel that supports a workshop when travel or other situations lead to gaps that might lead to cancellation of a workshop.
As I look ahead to the MAG after I leave it and that day will come soon, I am hoping that it is enriched by at least another 25 per year active participants per stakeholder group that I can cheerfully say: the MAG enhanced diversity in gender, geo representation, and issue diversity, so that we have at least 100 more experts each year who return to build on the IGF, both in our IGF annually, and also feed back into their national or sub regional or regional IGF.
From: virat.bhatia at intl.att.com
To: barrister at chambers.gen.nz; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 21:20:29 +0530
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
Dear Members of the MAG,
Sent this out 2 hours ago, but some didn’t get it. My apologies if it is resend for anyone.
From: Bhatia, Virat
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 7:08 PM
To: 'Peter Dengate Thrush' <barrister at chambers.gen.nz>; 'MAG-public' <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: RE: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
Dear Peter, Many thanks for your email. This is an important issue and we must try and close it at the earliest and with the best possible way forward. Here is a brief description of the evolutionary perspective, and past discussions, followed by my submission on the issue. 1. Discussion started in 2014 (i) Before 2014 IGF in Istanbul, some MAG members (not all) served as speakers and/or moderators in main sessions and workshops. There was no rule limiting or preventing such participation. In 2014, during my first year in the MAG, the MAG imposed a self-restraint, ahead of Istanbul IGF for the first time. Some of the reasons are already well documented in your mail. Pros and cons were argued (as you have) and on the balance, the rule of “3+1” was agreed upon (maximum of 3 workshops and 1 main session), where a MAG member could serve either as a speaker and/or as a moderator. (ii) In part, the complete ban could not be imposed in 2014, because, by the time the discussion on limiting MAG members participation as speakers and / or moderators gained ground, several MAG members had already committed to serve as speakers on approved workshops for IGF 2014. Since MAG members were already committed, they could not withdraw at the last minute, leaving workshop organizers in a lurch. 2. In 2015 In 2015 the rule continued to remain, but it was generally understood that MAG members could serve as speakers and/or moderators at main sessions and workshops within the rule of 3+1, but only as an exception. (E.g. no other candidate available to serve as moderator / speaker or last minute cancellation, etc.) At least that is how I understood the position and acted upon it. Admittedly the rule may not have been followed in its letter and spirit in 2015. However my impression is, that for the most part there was tremendous self-restraint shown by MAG members in 2015. Several of us in the MAG who have been regular speakers and moderators, both for main sessions and workshops, have politely refused speaking opportunities, offered by workshop proposers and main session organizers in 2014 and 15. 3. Now for 2016 ( my submission) For 2016, I would recommend that we go with option 3 that you have suggested: “A complete limit (ban) on MAG member involvement (probably with a let-out clause that would allow a MAG member to apply for dispensation in certain circumstance).” If the MAG agrees, this can be implemented for both main sessions and workshops in 2016. Main sessions: Main session written proposals have not been finalized (perhaps not even written yet), so no MAG member stands committed as a speaker and / or moderator. Sufficient time for co-facilitators to find good alternatives between now and November 2016. Workshops: Since Workshop proposal evaluations have not begun yet, MAG members (if they agree) can recuse themselves, if a workshop proposer reaches out to them for serving as a moderator or speaker. However, as option 3 (above) implies, if there are unavoidable circumstances, where the MAG member in his wisdom decides, and the MAG agrees that an exception needs to be made, for either a main session or workshop, then the same can be allowed.The above restraint (ban) is only for serving MAG members (during their tenure) as speakers and / or moderators at main sessions and workshops. Once they rotate off the list, they can and must accept moderator /speaker roles for both main sessions and workshops. In fact in some cases, they may be the best suited candidatesThe restraint does not in any stop the MAG members from being co-facilitators or organizers of main sessions. In fact quite the contrary. The role of co-facilitators is completely different from that of moderators, as explained in the Working Group recommendations. Again, opting for restraint is my personal preference, and submitted for MAG’s consideration. Invite MAG members to weigh in. Regards,Virat Bhatia -----Original Message-----
From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dengate Thrush
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 6:08 AM
To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
Fellow MAG members,
With apologies for the delay, I’d like to return to a topic raised in our call last month - the public participation in events at IGF meetings by MAG members.
It appears there was a time when MAG members played an active part in not only proposing sessions of various sorts at IGF meetings, but chairing/moderating, speaking ( on panels and other formats) and generally taking a very public role at IGF meetings.
Over time, it has seemed more appropriate for MAG members to play a lesser public role. The possibility of a conflict of interest in proposing sessions which MAG members are involved in, even if they personally refrain from evaluating their own proposals, is one obvious reason for a reduced role.
When I joined the MAG last year, there were various comments made to the effect that MAG members should not assume public roles, but should encourage, coach and facilitate new talent to emerge.
Last year, it appeared to me (entirely subjectively) that MAG members generally took a lower profile, but that was not uniform. Some MAG members appeared in a variety of public roles.
It seems to me we should have a discussion then come to a quick conclusion about the parameters of the public performance by MAG members.
The points on both sides of the issue are obvious: on the one hand MAG members are (typically) leaders in their communities, and have a good grasp of a wide range of topics, and serve well as speakers on topics they are familiar with, if not experts upon. One of the reasons for joining the MAG is to increase one’s involvement in these issues. For some if not many MAG members, active participation ( being in the published programme) is a pre-requisite for getting funding from employers or other parties. In other cases, it is the groups putting the sessions together that seek the participation of MAG members because of their high profile and expertise.
On the other hand, MAG members are leaders in their communities, and don’t need to increase their profiles. They could be using their positions to bring on new talent.The conflict of interest point extends across all formats - many worthwhile and interesting sessions are not approved for inclusion, and it weakens the IGF to have any appearance of favouritism. MAG members should do other things to enhance the profile of the IGF.
Doubtless there are more points, with many nuances around each one.
I suggest, for the purposes of the discussion that I now invite, that we consider three broad options;
(1) No Limits on MAG member involvement:
(2) Some limit (TBD after debate, but probably along the lines of the “Rule of 3” some have cited ( as if it were a rule);
(3) A complete limit (ban) on MAG member involvement ( probably with a let-out clause that would allow a MAG member to apply for dispensation in certain circumstance).
I look forward to some discussion on this, and then a move to closure.
I note that the Main Sessions draft produced by that WG takes the position that all Main Sessions need to be facilitated by MAG members ( a continuation of the same position taken in the 2015 paper.) I’d be interested in learning of the reasoning behind that.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Igfmaglist