[IGFmaglist] Ideas on IGF reporting and concluding sessions structure

Sylvia Cadena sylvia at apnic.net
Wed Oct 16 22:23:57 EDT 2019


Dear colleagues, 

In the SSS&R case, as you know we have invited organizers of sessions to do this job (not MAG members). Unfortunately, it will be difficult to have the same moderators for the concluding session breakout groups, as most of the ones that have confirmed their availability for the introductory session will be leaving the day before the event finishes, so they will not be available on the last day of the event. 

Based on the agenda that Ben outlined in one of his previous emails, I think that it will be really useful to use the key messages of the short reports for the breakout discussions, as a mechanism to reinforce -and use- those messages. 

Although I think is a lot simpler to ask people to go to the breakout group of their interest, I think that is quite difficult to do that and yet develop some consistent reporting that match how the program has been structured. I think is really important that the subtheme is allocated based on how the proposal was presented. 

On a separate email thread, I have asked what the decision is about including OFs, DCs and BPFs as part of the breakout groups and readouts for the introductory session, and that questions is even more important for the concluding session, considering their proposals didn’t have a subtheme included as part of the submission form. If the intro & concluding sessions cover all types of sessions and include them in the breakout discussions, in the SSS&R track for example, the report of the concluding session can vary from 44 sessions listed under SSS&R (where only 21 are workshops). As you can see that changes the amount of time they may have to discuss their sessions. 

I am fine with whatever decision the MAG makes about this, but we need to be clear and consistent across all 3 tracks about what is covered and what is not for both, intro & concluding sessions, as that has a very clear impact on the reporting. 

Worth taking into consideration that Main Sessions are not tagged by track on Sched (so not sure which one go under which track) as well as those that are identified as Dynamic Coalition Cross Theme on Shed (3 sessions https://igf2019.sched.com/overview/type/Dynamic+Coalition+Cross-Theme). 

I have done the mapping on the file attached, to assist with the preparation of the SSS&R intro & concluding session, to know which ones are to be contacted to bring reports. I am sharing here a version of that mapping that does not include any contact information for session organizers just in case. On this mapping, we allocate subthemes for the different session types (except Main Sessions, which are not listed by track). 

Regards,
 
Sylvia
 
________________________________________________________________________
 
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia at apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.
 

On 16/10/19, 8:22 pm, "SUTO Timea" <Timea.SUTO at iccwbo.org> wrote:

    Dear All,
    
    Thank you very much for the comments, ideas and support on the closing session guidelines. 
    
    As agreed on yesterday's MAG call, please share any further comments, ideas by week's end, then we will consider the document closed and I will share a final, clean version on Monday.
    
    So far I note broad support for mirroring the structure / format of the introductory sessions for the closing and to keep, to the extent possible, the same facilitators / moderators for the break-out groups. I believe we can consider these suggestions accepted.
    
    It also looks like there is general agreement on assessing % of stakeholder groups participation in these sessions and break-out groups. This seems quite simple to do by show-of-hands for in-person participants. For remote participants, I'm wondering whether there is a way the Secretariat can check this based on the log of the remote participation platform and cross-referencing with registration info?
    
    With many thanks and kind regards,
    Timea
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ben Wallis (CELA) <bewallis at microsoft.com> 
    Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 4:24 AM
    To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>; SUTO Timea <Timea.SUTO at iccwbo.org>; Chalmers, Susan <SChalmers at ntia.gov>; María Paz Canales <mariapaz at derechosdigitales.org>
    Cc: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
    Subject: RE: [IGFmaglist] Ideas on IGF reporting and concluding sessions structure
    
    Thanks Lynn. I think that would be interesting and could be extended also to the break out sessions, so we can not only see to what extent the different stakeholder groups were interested in the three themes, but also the respective interest in the various sub-themes.
    
    Ben 
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org> 
    Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 11:26 AM
    To: SUTO Timea <Timea.SUTO at iccwbo.org>; Chalmers, Susan <SChalmers at ntia.gov>; María Paz Canales <mariapaz at derechosdigitales.org>
    Cc: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
    Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Ideas on IGF reporting and concluding sessions structure
    
    Thank you Timea, Susan, Maria, all,
    
    I also think it is important that the introductory and closing sessions mirror each other and believe this process will help develop a coherent picture of IGF activities.
    
    On a related note:  I wonder if we can ask the WS organizers/moderators in each session to do a quick show of hands of which SH group those participating in the session identify with.  We could capture that in rough %.   I recognize that this is not inclusive of those participating online so would appreciate any suggestions on how to include them.   Even a rough assessment would be useful for assessing how multistakeholder any discussion was, as well as what each session attracts in terms of stakeholders.  This could be done immediately after opening comments by the moderator or at the end in the closing comments.  Thoughts?
    
    Lynn
    
    
    
    
    > On Oct 7, 2019, at 11:53 AM, SUTO Timea <Timea.SUTO at iccwbo.org> wrote:
    > 
    > Dear colleagues,
    >  
    > As promised on our latest MAG call, I am re-circulating attached and below the guidelines Susan, Maria-Paz and I worked on in June for the concluding sessions as well as our initial thoughts on IGF reporting. You can find the same in google docs here (see pages 3 and 4): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tv_ZThCK6MqLdTZqU69mjdXgdkEDH_oRkvin4jvL-mw/edit?usp=sharing
    >  
    > I believe the organizing teams in each track are already using the closing session structure to set up their respective sessions – many thanks again to all for your efforts, and of course looking forward to any and all improvements on this!
    >  
    > The suggestions on IGF reporting came naturally from our thinking on concluding sessions, trying to align as much as possible the concluding sessions and the reporting process. All comments on these initial ideas are more than welcome.
    > I also set up a separate google doc for comments on this item alone:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vh1xMMWa95PZCe1tHJgztV28g2nniBDSnYb9_OPEBwk/edit?usp=sharing.
    > If you have difficulty submitting comments online, please feel free to send them to me in track changes to the attached document and I’ll add them online.
    >  
    > Your thoughts and suggestions will be of great help to the ad-hoc group of MAG members working on the reporting process.
    >  
    > With many thanks and kind regards,
    > Timea
    >  
    > From: SUTO Timea <Timea.SUTO at iccwbo.org> 
    > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 2:25 PM
    > To: 'Chalmers, Susan' <SChalmers at ntia.gov>; MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
    > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Proposal for Introductory and Conclusory Sessions
    >  
    > Dear Susan, colleagues,
    >  
    > Many thanks for sharing this. I am happy to speak to the concluding session – which in many aspects follows the structure of the introductory session, and will need the help of (the same?) volunteers from the thematic evaluation groups.
    >  
    > Looking forward to speaking soon.
    >  
    > Best,
    > Timea
    >  
    > From: Chalmers, Susan <SChalmers at ntia.gov> 
    > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 1:43 AM
    > To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
    > Subject: [IGFmaglist] Proposal for Introductory and Conclusory Sessions
    >  
    > Dear colleagues,
    > 
    > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tv_ZThCK6MqLdTZqU69mjdXgdkEDH_oRkvin4jvL-mw/mobilebasic
    > 
    > The above link should take you to the latest status of the Introductory and Concluding sessions format and development plan for each of the three themes.
    > 
    > The agenda for our upcoming call includes updates on these sessions. I can speak to the Introductory Sessions plan. In essence we will need volunteers from each of the thematic evaluation groups to play a role in the organization of the session. If you are new to the MAG or haven’t yet engaged in organizational activities, this is an opportunity to do that during your term.
    > 
    > Speak soon,
    > Susan 
    > <IGF 2019_suggestions on reporting.docx><IGF 2019_Concluding Sessions Structure.docx>
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Igfmaglist mailing list
    Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
    To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
    _______________________________________________
    Igfmaglist mailing list
    Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
    To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
    

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mapping-intro&concluding-SSSR.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 35826 bytes
Desc: Mapping-intro&concluding-SSSR.xlsx
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20191017/beb5e9d9/attachment-0001.xlsx>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list