[Wg-mwp] [IGFmaglist] IMPORTANT for MAG Review: Proposed Poll to be launched during IGF

Lynn St.Amour st.amour at bluewin.ch
Sun Dec 17 03:33:17 EST 2017


Dear Kenta, all,

thank you for your considered responses.  As the poll was proposed by a member of the WG, and supported by many, I thought it important to revert to them as a first step.  

Following the recent comments on the MAG list, I think the only reasonable course is to postpone the poll.  Even "rough consensus" assumes you continue until all “reasonable” objections have been addressed.  Many good points have been raised, and more reflection would clearly be beneficial.  Unfortunately, time is against us.

As virtually everyone has said there is value in doing a poll/survey, let’s continue the work, and give it the time it deserves.  I would encourage the WG, assuming it continues, to take into account all the comments and with the MAG decide how to pursue a new poll/survey.
 
Best, and thank you to all those who worked to get the poll to this stage.  

Lynn

 

> On Dec 16, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Kenta Mochizuki <kemochiz at yahoo-corp.jp> wrote:
> 
> Dear Chair and all,
>  
> Good evening, my apologies for getting back to you late. I arrived in Geneva after 13 hours...
>  
> I am glad to hear from you and thank you for sharing the proposed poll.
>  
> While I appreciate your leadership and hard work to try to improve the IGF by such a valuable way, unfortunately, I do not support launching at IGF Geneva 2017.
>  
> I support a poll as such, but it is still premature to launch at the upcoming IGF. Reasons are as follows, in addition to what Carolyn said in detail and pertinently:
>  
> 1) There is no explanation on the background and ultimate purpose of the poll. I would appreciate if you or members of WG-MSWP could explain its i) background, ii) ultimate purpose, and iii) future timetable. 
>  
> 2) Conducting a poll to gather more evidence is great, but with the current content we will not be able to achieve what we want (I am not sure what WG-MSWP wants, though). My personal opinion is that before doing a poll (or in parallel to), we had better think about some existing criticism against the IGF seriously like the following news article.
>  
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/31/black_box_un_internet_body/?page=2
>  
> In this regard, I am wondering why there is no question about the IGF/MAG. I think many people do not know what the MAG is or who organizes the IGF. In addition, there are many stakeholders who submitted their workshop proposals but failed, while (especially in this year) there are more NRIs collaborative sessions not subject to the MAG selection process than the MAG agreed. Sooner or later stakeholders will notice, so I strongly believe it is time to set clearer guidelines so that we can prove the transparency, fairness, and impartiality of our process.
>  
> 3) Having said that, as I said before, the idea is excellent. Therefore, it might be another option for WG-MSWP to announce in the IGF Geneva 2017 that it will start to discuss a poll to gather more evidence for the improvement of future IGFs and will also publish the poll sometime during this year, after careful deliberation among the MAG.
>  
> Hope these opinions will be useful for all. Thank you so much.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Kenta
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Carolyn Nguyen (CELA)
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 1:21 PM
> To: Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at bluewin.ch>; peter dengate thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz>
> Cc: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>; wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IMPORTANT for MAG Review: Proposed Poll to be launched during IGF
>  
> Dear Lynn, colleagues,
>  
> Many thanks for all the work that has gone into this survey. While the use of polls to get further information is very valuable, I do not support the launch of this poll at this IGF for both content- and process-related reasons.
>  
> On the content: 
>         - Surveys are useful when the problem definition is clear, including what are the issues that the poll will help to address? What other instruments will also be used to generate sufficient evidence to help address the problem as defined? How will the poll results be used and who will process them? Who should be the respondents to give representative perspectives, and what would be considered representative?
>         - On the survey itself: Are the questions not leading or biasing responses in how they can be interpreted by respondents whose native language is not English? Etc.
>         - Specifically regarding the survey as shared: for the issues that the IGF needs to address, there are
>                 (a)     policy issues that the public at large is currently concerned with (the majority of those listed in the tags, e.g., human rights, privacy, digital literacy, etc.) – some of these will persist (e.g., human rights) and some will be current concerns that will evolve from year to year (e.g., fake news)
>                 (b)     more “wonky” issues that will require multi-year efforts and tend to be concerns of those who are subject matter experts in internet governance (e.g., achievement of the SDGs, sustenance & financial viability of the IGF)
>  
>                 Which of these is the survey intended to address? Currently, there is a mixture of both in the list offered. The two categories of issues (there may be more) are different in nature, and what is considered “representative” would be different for the 2 types of issues. If the type (b) issues are not prioritized by the “community”(which are not yet clearly defined), would they then also be deprioritized in the IGF plans? How will the poll results be used?
>         - There a number of concerns with questions 9 (b,c,d) and equivalently, 10 (b,c,d) that merit further discussion.
>                 - Question 9B on measurement of success is curious in that neither pars 72-78 of the Tunis Agenda nor the UNGA WSIS+10 outcome document mention measurements –and the survey as positioned is to inform the work of the IGF?
>                 - Question 9C on how long to solve issues – by what means? There are many interdependent elements to global policy dialogues – the intention of this question is unclear, which will make it difficult to get meaningful answers.
>                 - Question 9D – who represents the “IGF” in this question? What are the mechanisms for “working alongside” – the chair participates? Secretariat participation? MAG participation? Member participation? It’s also not clear why some of the organizations included are clearly not multi-stakeholder even if stakeholders can participate in some of the side events.
>  
> On the process: Although the survey was proposed some time ago, as Lynn mentioned, it came together very quickly at the end. The text of the survey was only shared for the first time on Thursday, when the majority of MAG members are busy preparing for the IGF itself, and there has been little opportunities for substantive discussion and review. Comments such as that made by Peter below need further discussion, but it seems already too late to make changes. This would imply that any further discussion is not welcome.
>  
> The need for quick action is understood, but this must be weighed against the value of a well-designed instrument that would be able to generate meaningful and clear input, to solve problems that we all agree on. For the reasons shared above, I do not support the launch of this poll.
>  
> Best regards,
> Carolyn
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:59 AM
> To: peter dengate thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz>
> Cc: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>; wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IMPORTANT for MAG Review: Proposed Poll to be launched during IGF
> Importance: High
>  
> Hi Peter,
>  
> thank you for your comments.  Indeed, “timely questions” was initially “urgent problems” but one of the SH groups requested this be changed.  It may be too late to change it in the survey, but if it is not too late -  could we agree to use “current topics” as it is more accurate and I believe this is in keeping with the SH’s intent.
>  
> Best,
> Lynn
>  
>  
> > On Dec 15, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Lynn
> > I'm pleased to see a survey done at IGF.
> > Feedback is the breakfast of champions. The best decisions are going to be made with more, and more relevant data.
> > The answers to these questions, subject to usual survey issues, are likely to be very helpful.
> >  
> > I have a couple of semantic quibbles with the Questionnaire.
> > It's use throughout of the word “timely” is inaccurate in English.
> > It appears to be being used as a synonym for “current’ or sometimes “pressing” - which it is not.
> > In usual English it means  "done within the prescribed time”.
> > 
> > Similarly, the word “questions" is used to mean “issues” or “topics” rather than its usual meaning in English.
> > In ( e.g. ) Q 7, a list of questions is presented including topics like “multistakeholder cooperation” - no actual question is posed about this topic.
> > 
> > With a bit of tidying of these things, this will be a useful program.
> > 
> > 
> > My regards
> > 
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > barrister at chambers.gen.nz
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On 14/12/2017, at 1:41 PM, Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Dear colleagues, 
> >> 
> >> Please find below a proposed poll that the WG: Multi-year Strategic Work Plan believes would be valuable to launch during the upcoming IGF.   This is the work product of the WG: Multi-year Strategic Work Plan. It was considerably improved by poll experts from the European Broadcasting Union who donated their time following a request for expert review.  Everyone has worked hard to ensure an unbiased poll.  The purpose is to get input on the timely questions the IGF community — and hopefully well beyond the IGF community — believes should be addressed in the IGF.
> >> 
> >> I would like to encourage those MAG members who were part of this WG to add any additional reflections.   While this poll was suggested some months ago, like many things it has only come together very recently and certainly the pace has not been ideal.
> >> 
> >> The WG is sending this to the MAG for review, and hopefully support to launch during the Geneva IGF.
> >> 
> >> 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.     Time is of the essence and so please could you signal your position ASAP:
> >> 
> >> Support Launching at IGF Geneva _____
> >> 
> >> - DO NOT support launching at IGF Geneva  (pleas give an indication of your rationale or concern)._____
> >> 
> >> Also, please note this is a poll, it is not a vote.   It should inform MAG deliberations. The results will be sent to the MAG and published online for full community review.
> >> 
> >> Thanks in advance for your quick review.  There are a few implementation comments still inserted in the attached document, and the best approach this will be determined by the IGF Secretariat.
> >> 
> >> I appreciate the busy time we are all in but it would be very helpful to have your inputs by Saturday COB CET.
> >> 
> >> Best and thank you,
> >> 
> >> <PROPOSAL FOR A POLL FOR THE IGF &  BEYOND - FOR MAG APPROVAL CLEAN DOC.docx>
> >> 
> >> Lynn
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Igfmaglist mailing list
> >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Figfmaglist_intgovforum.org&data=04%7C01%7CCarolyn.Nguyen%40microsoft.com%7Cb78d436cc53140a9183f08d544742e4a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636490188146239149%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=xJP7c8XRDSoXHoc6cdqUYaOqM03wtBS3fcq8f2rNbKw%3D&reserved=0
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Igfmaglist mailing list
> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Figfmaglist_intgovforum.org&data=04%7C01%7CCarolyn.Nguyen%40microsoft.com%7Cb78d436cc53140a9183f08d544742e4a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636490188146239149%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=xJP7c8XRDSoXHoc6cdqUYaOqM03wtBS3fcq8f2rNbKw%3D&reserved=0
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Figfmaglist_intgovforum.org&data=04%7C01%7CCarolyn.Nguyen%40microsoft.com%7Cb78d436cc53140a9183f08d544742e4a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636490188146239149%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=xJP7c8XRDSoXHoc6cdqUYaOqM03wtBS3fcq8f2rNbKw%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org





More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list