[Wg-mwp] Proposed Poll for IGF 2017

Lynn St.Amour st.amour at bluewin.ch
Wed Dec 13 10:34:00 EST 2017


Dear Elizabeth,

thank you for your comments and for turning them around so quickly.  It is much appreciated.  I will incorporate these edits and send a clean version to the WG and to the MAG.

Best to all,
Lynn


> On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:17 AM, THOMAS-RAYNAUD Elizabeth <elizabeth.thomas-raynaud at iccwbo.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lynn and Working group members,
>  
> Sorry to have missed the call but based on the briefing I understood there was reticence by many to rush this through this year.
> However, it seems there are some simple questions in the initial proposal that would require less deliberation and improvement and we could do as the Chair said, pursue the good rather than letting a pursuit of perfection hold us back.
>  
> To that end, please see attached suggested edits we think would satisfy the goal of getting a poll out for this IGF that gathers the key input on topics as desired. The latter questions have more nuance and complexity than the questions reflect and as written they don’t work. Rather than let those flaws hold the poll back we would support it going forward as simplified in the attached.
>  
> Thanks to all working on this initiative and the pursuit of better understanding the topics and issues of greatest appeal to participants to better inform deliberations next year.
> Kind regards,
> Elizabeth
>  
>  
>  
> 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: Wg-mwp [mailto:wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: 12 December 2017 17:58
> To: wg-mwp
> Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] Proposed Poll for IGF 2017
> Importance: High
>  
> Dear WG members,
> 
> per our call yesterday, I have done my (non-expert) best to incorporate the comments from the call and the mail list in the attached document.  Would appreciate any comments by return email.  IN parallel, I am sending the same document to the EBU volunteers and the secretariat in order to progress their reviews in parallel.
> 
> Given the discussion on the call yesterday and the number of strong statements that this was important to launch at the IGF - with of course much broader outreach as well, I would like to send this to the MAG Wednesday AM for their review and hopefully support.   If there are any views WG members would like incorporated in that request to the MAG, please let me know ASAP.  I will do my best to reflect accurately our discussion (including points of discomfort with timing or any other points that are raised).
> 
> From my perspective as a longstanding IGF participant (and NOT as Chair), I think this poll could be very helpful, and I believe it is a good start.  We can always improve - but let’s not make perfection the enemy of the good.   Concrete suggestions much appreciated.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> 
> > On Dec 12, 2017, at 6:38 AM, Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl> wrote:
> > 
> > Lynn, all,
> > 
> > Thank you again for an excellent discussion yesterday.
> > 
> > For the record I would like to reiterate that in my opinion we only get one chance at reaching out to people in the heat of the moment: that is next week. All other options are more than suboptimal, as participation in all intersessional work proves it to be. What we are working on to change.
> > 
> > Having said that, yes, it is of course important to reach those who are not present at the IGF (and do not participate remotely) and invite them to join in and share their views.
> > 
> > So, if the EBU offers this WG the opportunity to make this happen, let's embrace it and make it possible for the MAG to decide asap, if it needs to do so. We could also see this as our poll, in search of input for our final recommendations to the new MAG.
> > 
> > Where the questions are concerned, I have already given one suggestion yesterday. A second one would be: Do you feel that the main issues of your stakeholder group are fully discussed at the IGF? y/n or something like it. In search of improvement suggestions.
> > 
> > On the last two questions on gender/age, perhaps country also. Will we use these answers in any way and are they relevant to the questionnaire? Just asking.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Wout
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > De Natris Consult
> > Kamerlingh Onnesstraat 43                                                        Tel: +31 648388813            
> > 2014 EK Haarlem                                                                          Skype: wout.de.natris
> > 
> > denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
> > 
> > http://www.denatrisconsult.nl
> > 
> > Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com
> > 
> > 
> > From: Wg-mwp <wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org> on behalf of Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at bluewin.ch>
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 4:28 PM
> > To: wg-mwp
> > Subject: [Wg-mwp] Proposed Poll for IGF 2017
> >  
> > Dear WG members,
> > 
> > please find below the latest draft of the poll proposed by one of our WG members - Giacomo Mazzone.   It is being tabled for discussion on our call later today.
> > 
> > Giacomo and his expert colleagues in the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) have put this together and they will support the analysis once the poll is complete.   I would like to thank Giacomo and his colleagues for their expert support.   The question before this WG is whether or not this is ready to go to the MAG for their review and to seek support for launching at this IGF.
> > 
> > This is a stretch goal as obviously time is tight, though this was discussed several months ago on one of our very first calls.
> > 
> > As the poll is really quite straight-forward, I am hoping we can all take a few minutes to review it carefully and offer any suggestions for improvement.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for all your efforts.
> > 
> > Lynn
> > .
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wg-mwp mailing list
> > Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wg-mwp mailing list
> > Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wg-mwp mailing list
> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
> <PROPOSAL FOR A POLL CONSULTATION FOR THE IGF  BEYOND_rev.docx>_______________________________________________
> Wg-mwp mailing list
> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org





More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list