[IGFmaglist] Potential IGF 2017 Intersessional activities
st.amour at bluewin.ch
Mon Mar 27 13:43:45 EDT 2017
with apologies, I am working backwards on these emails as I have been offline much of the last few weeks.
Thank you, these are very timely questions. As you know at our first face-to-face meeting Juan Fernandez agreed to review the current BPF Formation and Working Modalities Processes and send an update to the MAG for review. The MAG will be receiving this very shortly (perhaps even before this email is complete).
With respect to DCs, Avri Doria has kindly agreed to write up the current processes and in line with the DCs continuing quest for improvement, will be reviewing those documents with the DCs for any needed improvements in 2017. The MAG will have an opportunity to review these. Please see Avri’s recent email for more background.
Finally, a document capturing practices of WG formation/modalities, etc. has also been sent to the MAG for review.
Elizabeth, I hope these efforts taken together answer your questions. If not, there will be time during the individual reviews to address them in more detail, or feel free to come back and raise them again.
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:43 PM, THOMAS-RAYNAUD Elizabeth <elizabeth.thomas-raynaud at iccwbo.org> 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 THOMAS-RAYNAUD
> International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
> Project Director, ICC Business 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,
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
More information about the Igfmaglist