[IGFmaglist] Potential IGF 2017 Intersessional activities

avri doria avri at acm.org
Mon Mar 27 10:36:13 EDT 2017


Hi,

In terms of DCs, we have a set of long traditions on DC conditions,
operations and relation to the annual meeting. which we need to write
up, as requested by our chair at our last meeting.  This write=up has
not been done yet.

I feel that this write-up will need to be reviewed by the DC
Coordination group before we can present it to the MAG. I also feel that
any changes to be made in the way DCs are treated, e.g. the condition
for scheduling a session at the annual meeting, will need to be
discussed within the DC Coordination group in cooperation with the MAG.
Unlike BPFs and the so-called Intersessional topics, DCs are bottom-up
constructions that need to adhere to certain conditions that have been
agreed to by both the DC Coordination group and the MAG. And the place
to start is with the description of the current conditions and
expectations of those actually working in the DCs year round.  Am happy
to work with Markus and Elaonora to get this done over the next few weeks.

Thanks

avri



On 24-Mar-17 12:43, THOMAS-RAYNAUD Elizabeth wrote:
>
> Dear Chengetai,
>
>  
>
> In recent discussions with community members we found that we lacked
> clarity about the process through which the intersessional activities
> are respectively decided upon or resources designated to support the
> expansion of additional ones. I was asked whether it was a MAG or
> Secretariat decision and what considerations differed for BPFs vs DCs,
> so I must ask if you have that answer. We’ve spoken about limiting the
> number of concurrent BPFs recently among the MAG but I couldn’t answer
> the question whether there can be an unlimited number of DCs or
> whether there was any measurement/reporting activity on the
> intersessional activities that set any standard or requirement for
> them to continue. Your report on 2017 activities notes the
> items/proposals put forward but it doesn’t indicated what vetting
> process is required for them to go forward so is it correct to assume
> that anything not contested by MAG members is accepted?
>
>  
>
> I am requesting more clarity on these questions if you or someone else
> might write and share them ahead of the virtual meeting next week so
> we discuss these topics from a common understanding on these
> questions. I fear based on recent discussions with those who’ve served
> longer than me on the MAG as well as newly appointed, without this
> clarity we run the risk of misunderstanding our task on the call due
> to false assumptions.
>
>  
>
> There was a similar question posed about what determines whether a MAG
> Working Group goes ahead. Is it just for a member to propose and no
> one to contest or is there a critical mass that has to endorse it as a
> worthwhile pursuit? Is there an unlimited number? A process for
> distinguishing what makes sense for the MAG to consider working on and
> in what capacity it would be doing so. Having served on the WG on
> Outreach and Communication last year, I felt at times there was a
> confusion between what we as MAG could/should being doing and what was
> the role of the Secretariat.
>
>  
>
> Also, as expressed in the meeting in Geneva and reinforced since my
> discussions with many in the community since –we must keep top of mind
> that there are finite resources of Secretariat support, MAG time and
> community members to cover and contribute to work. We risk failing to
> be the IGF we want by never saying no so I hope we can work out how
> even good ideas that aren’t contested be weighed in view of relative
> value, importance and resource impact and I urge that we need more
> help in assessing that.
>
>  
>
> Many thanks in advance for assisting with these questions.
>
> Happy weekend to all.
>
> Elizabeth
>
>  
>
> *Elizabeth THOMAS-RAYNAUD*
>
> International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
>
> Project Director, ICCBusiness Action to Support the Information
> Society (BASIS)
>
> Senior Policy Executive, Digital Economy
>
>  
>
> *From:*Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Chengetai Masango
> *Sent:* 14 March 2017 19:54
> *To:* 'IGF Maglist'
> *Subject:* [IGFmaglist] Potential IGF 2017 Intersessional activities
>
>  
>
> Dear All,
>
>  
>
> Please find attached a table of the potential 2017 intesessional
> activities and their status according to the Secretariat’s recollection.
>
>  
>
> Best regards,
>
>  
>
> Chengetai
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org



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





More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list