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

Thu Jan 23 01:53:57 EST 2020

 I may come in a little late  on the issues but  reading through comments
regarding the issue of a forth track i can recall we did reach a consensus
as to adding one more "Emerging Priorities" to . This, i believe will not
necessarily keep us out of focus. i do agree with Ben's suggestion for
rephrasing but adding fourth theme to encapsulate priority issues is
imperative. i can remember in 2018 we had 8 tracks, i personally  don't see
why  expanding  or adding a fourth track can distract focuses in a nutshell
or take us to the  beyond  the periphery of current and emerging priority
issues  just to minimize work for the MAG and to that like the Chair
rightly said about responding to community priority and raising issues
inputs.

Chengetai's revised call for validation is okey for me.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

> Dear all
>
> Thanks for the responses. Very helpful. I did, for the record, use the
> notes from the early morning meeting on 16 January when we drafted the
> "call for validation". We (myself and the secretariat) have read all the
> input and Chengetai has updated the text online. We are using some of your
> suggested edits and suggestions and have tried to integrate the concerns on
> keeping the structure simple so as to reduce workload and ensure clarity.
> Susan, your point about not changing the draft call while the text was
> under discussion is noted. Apologies. The final version tries to address
> everyone's inputs. We agree with the idea that all issues can evolve.. and
> also that it is best not to include "emerging issues" and how to deal with
> them with this validation call.
>
> Essentially we have referred to an optional additional track rather than a
> fourth track. The text allows for us to choose whether to make such a
> track, if we add one, horisontal or vertical. We still propose the two
> options as something the MAG is currently considering, but we do not ask
> people to choose one or the other. We just ask for comment, and as pointed
> out by some of you, we also invite suggestions for additional themes. We
> use some of the language proposed by all of you who sent in specific edits.
>
> Carlos thanks for starting to develop sub-themes. Let's see what we get
> back from the community and then we can see how it relates to your
> breakdown. I think the workshop proposal working group would do well to
> look at Carlos' proposal for how to link workshops to tracks/themes. Also
> remember the input from the community about having different types of
> workshops.
>
> Just a few general points on the themes/tracks discussion:
>
> 1) Remember that we did already have a call for input in which we asked
> the question about additional themes, and we did receive suggestions for
> new themes. We cannot ignore the input already received.
>
> 2) Also remember that there were many MAG members who wanted us to do a
> new call for issues as the first call received only 41 responses. This call
> for "validation" is therefore a kind of hybrid... it presents our view on
> what we have received so far, but also creates an opening for new input.
>
> 3) There was also not complete consensus on whether to ask for issues or
> subthemes or policy questions or solutions. We tried to keep the request
> flexible to allow for all these. At a later stage we will have to make some
> decisions on what to include in the workshop call.
>
> 4) There is clearly some confusion over whether we agreed to keep to only
> the three Berlin tracks or have the possibility of an additional track. I
> recall we wanted to keep our options fairly open at this point, but with a
> overall agreed concern that we should limit the number of tracks. In the
> final text we used Ben's proposed language to achieve compromise with
> regard to the different recollections. That is essentially to provide an
> option for an additional track which could be either horisontal or
> vertical. The MAG can decide, once hearing the community's input, on
> whether to have no additional track, or to make it crosscutting/horisontal
> or vertical.
>
> 5) Focus is good and three tracks are indeed easy to work with. But the
> IGF also has to respond to community input and current priorities. While
> one can use crosscutting tracks as part of the event design, that can also
> add confusion. It could make the design of the event more difficult to
> follow than simply adding an additional track. As was pointed out during
> the MAG meeting, "Inclusion", for example, could also be treated as a
> horisontal or crosscutting track. I am not proposing that as a way
> forward... just sounding a warning about using a horisontal track as a way
> of keeping things simple - it might have the opposite effect.
>
> For now, let's see what the call produces and then we can take the next
> step.
>
> Thanks again everyone.
>
> Anriette
>
> -----------------------------
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning
> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org
>
> On 2020/01/22 09:06, Rudolf.Gridl at bmwi.bund.de wrote:
>
> I support Susan‘s and Sylvia‘s interventions. We should limit ourselves to
> the three tracks and add environmental sustainability and digital economy
> as cross-cutting themes for the program.
>
> Best,
>
> Rudolf
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* SChalmers at ntia.gov [mailto:SChalmers at ntia.gov <SChalmers at ntia.gov>]
>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 20:28
> *An:* Sylvia Cadena; MAG-public
> *Betreff:* Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic
> Tracks and Action Items
>
>
>
> I support Sylvia’s points.
>
>
>
> For what it is worth, I support Option 1, or adding “environmental
> sustainability” and “digital economy” as suggested tags or cross-cutting
> themes for the program instead of creating a new track.  An “emerging and
> evolving issue” fourth category will inevitably be viewed and responded to
> by workshop proposers as a catch-all or miscellaneous category, despite any
> of our clarifying efforts to the contrary.  We would be stepping back from
> the progress made last year in preparing a more focused, more approachable
> IGF agenda. But, let’s see how the community responds…
>
>
>
> As Sylvia points out, we’d have to draft a narrative for the category.
> For evaluation purposes, proposals must align with the narrative, which
> means that MAG members will spend precious time during the June meeting
> debating which issues (proposals) are “evolving and emerging” and which are
> not.  We would also find ourselves trying to distinguish between “evolving
> and emerging” and “data,” “inclusion,” and “trust” because folks will ask
> whether a given proposal would better fit in a different category.
>
>
>
> In any event, all issues “evolve,” but only new issues “emerge.”
>
>
>
> So, with all due respect to my colleague and collaborator Paul R., I would
> not support his suggested edits for a few reasons, but most basically
> because they add more words and categories, which magnifies the opportunity
> for confusion for an audience that has repeatedly expressed a desire for a
> more concise and comprehensible IGF agenda.
>
>
>
> *Note bene:*  the MAG has been asked for feedback by COB 0800 CET on
> 1/22, yet the text has already been modified by the Secretariat on the
> website.  This shouldn’t be the case.  The decision on the text should be
> taken following the review of all MAG member feedback, once the notified
> deadline to provide input has run.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Susan
>
>
>
> Susan Elizabeth Chalmers
>
> Internet Policy Specialist
>
> Office of International Affairs
>
> National Telecommunications and Information Administration
>
> U.S. Department of Commerce
>
> schalmers at ntia.gov
>
> 202.482.6789
>
>
>
> *Please note my new email address:  **schalmers at ntia.gov*
> <schalmers at ntia.gov>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net> <sylvia at apnic.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:17 AM
> *To:* MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic
> Tracks and Action Items
>
>
>
> 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 |
> hXXp://wwwXX.apnic.foundation
>
> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 |
> hXXp://wwwXX.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>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 5:39 am
> *To: *Chengetai Masango <chengetai.masango at un.org>, MAG-public <
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Chengetai Masango <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”
>
>
>
>
> hXXps://wwwXX.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 listIgfmaglist 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20200123/d2491844/attachment.html>