[IGFmaglist] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic Tracks and Action Items

[Charlton, Paul (IC)]

Dear colleagues,

I support Sylvia’s points, and those made separately by Susan.

My understanding at last week’s meeting was that we would keep to just three themes - retaining the three from last year (with changes to the theme titles). New or emerging issues/themes would be captured or reflected in the context of three themes, which should be possible due to the very broad nature of those themes.

As Sylvia and Susan point out, a fourth theme on new or emerging issues will inevitably become a catch all for a variety of issues that may or may not have a coherent connection to each other. This is in addition to the problem of diluting our focus by having a fourth theme.

I thought what cane out of last week’s meeting was a good compromise - restricting ourselves to three theme but with the flexibility to emerging priorities (esp. climate/environment within that framework.

Regards,

Paul C.



On Jan 21, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net<mailto:sylvia at apnic.net>> wrote:

Dear MAG colleagues,

Although I was not there neither in person or online to express my dissent during the MAG meeting, and it may be too late, I am sorry, but I don’t agree.

Although there is support for the changes proposed by Paul, I think the MAG should make a stronger effort to be clear on what a track actually covers. A track with such a wide title “evolving and emerging issues” or “emerging issues” can end up as a basket for everything that doesn’t fit in the other 3 and we will lose all the effort done last year to narrow the focus.

In my opinion, if a 4th track is to be added, the MAG should be a lot clearer about what the focus should be among the other topics identify. It is within the MAG’s mandate to make the decision to focus on one of those topics (environmental ‎sustainability/climate change and digital economy). Maybe the consultation process can ask the community which one to prioritize and to clarify that it is impossible to please everyone and discuss everything.

Please consider that for every decision that the MAG makes, there are a lot of implications on the evaluation of session proposals, design of reports and structure of the intro&concluding sessions. We will have to agree on a narrative for the “evolving and emerging issues”, and design the intro & concluding session for it, that fits the scope of the sessions approved under such track. That was my experience helping with the SSS&R track last year, as the concepts covered where extremely wide and in some cases the definitions didn’t even fit (like the workshop around access to medicines, that referred to the resilience definition, which didn’t have anything to do with Internet resilience, but with resilience in a more generic definition). Same goes for the definition of the subthemes under each one of the tracks. Clear definitions (as everyone that presented a session under the SSS&R track) are a key element to be able to advance on a discussion and wrap it up. Most of the discussions goes in circles just because speakers/contributors have very different definitions to begin with.

Even in 2018, when we had 8 tracks, the MAG made a very conscious effort to have them clearly defined.

Please reconsider.

Regards,

Sylvia

________________________________________________________________________

Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia at apnic.net<mailto: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.


From: June Parris <parrisjune51 at gmail.com<mailto:parrisjune51 at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 5:39 am
To: Chengetai Masango <chengetai.masango at un.org<mailto:chengetai.masango at un.org>>, MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic Tracks and Action Items

Dear All,

I agree to Paul and Karim and will give support.

Regards

June Parris

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

________________________________
From: Chengetai Masango <chengetai.masango at un.org<mailto:chengetai.masango at un.org>>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 12:24
To: MAG-public
Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic Tracks and Action Items

Dear All,

As agreed at the end of the MAG meeting

Please find attached a word document containing the meeting action items

and

The link to the draft “IGF 2020 Call for Validation of Thematic Tracks”

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2020-call-for-validation-of-issues

If you have any comments on the form  please let us know by O.O.B 22 Jan Geneva time. (08:00am)

Best regards

Chengetai
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20200121/d13a8683/attachment.html>