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

Wout de Natris denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
Sun Dec 17 03:39:23 EST 2017


Dear Lynn,


Appreciating your position.


This outcome is extremely disappointing. We are missing out on the one and only opportunity to pick the brains of people who will no longer respond to a questionnaire the day after the IGF. As we all know from experience.


In my opinion we have two options. One is to do a perhaps somewhat flawed poll during the IGF. What is the worst that can happen? We find out what is of importance to the participants? Is it an option to do this as WG only? We need the input we have decided, nearly unanimously, for our work.


The second option can accomodate all that are in need of some changes. As we want to reach out far beyond the usual suspects. We perfect it and send out that version to the rest of the world, next year.


Best,


Wout



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
De Natris Consult

Kamerlingh Onnesstraat 43                                                        Tel: +31 648388813

2014 EK Haarlem                                                                          Skype: wout.de.natris

denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl<mailto: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: Sunday, December 17, 2017 9:15 AM
To: Liesyl Franz
Cc: wg-mwp
Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] Fwd: IMPORTANT for MAG Review: Proposed Poll to be launched during IGF

Dear Liesyl, all,

following further 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.  And time is not with us.

I would encourage the WG, assuming it continues, to take into account all the comments and begin work as soon as appropriate to address them.

As most everyone has said there is value in doing a poll/survey, so let’s continue the good work.

Best, and thank you to all those who worked to get the poll to this stage.  Giacomo, would you please pass on the WG’s appreciation and thanks to the EBU support for all their work.

Best,
Lynn



> On Dec 16, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Franz, Liesyl I <FranzLI at state.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear chair et al,
> Thoughts on the poll itself notwithstanding (as I for one have not had adequate time to thoughtfully review it) I do appreciate the need for fuller consideration and, therefore, support your recommendation to postpone it.  It could be a great innovation and a way to get feedback (and maybe even import information) but I just think this is too quick a turn around to make those determinations and make sure that if we do it, we do it in a deliberative way.  So I support postponing - thank you.
>
> I am about to board my flight so will look forward to seeing everyone in Geneva!
>
> Liesyl
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 3:32 PM, Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at bluewin.ch<mailto:st.amour at bluewin.ch>> wrote:
>
> Dear WG members,
>
> two MAG members have posted with concerns re the proposed poll, and there has been no support for this poll from one of the SH groups.   And, time is against us, whether or not one believes the concerns are addressable.
>
> This poll was proposed by a member of the WG, and supported by many.  The timing works against us here as well as there is no time to continue this discussion in the WG.  Therefore, my recommendation is to postpone the poll, giving the WG (or the MAG) time to reflect and as appropriate update/pursue a new poll.
>
> This is not an easy call, yet I believe we will all benefit from more reflection and a more considered discussion.
>
> I am posting this to the WG first, we can all sleep on it a bit before responding to the MAG, whose call it ultimately is.
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Pablo Bello <pablo at tel.lat<mailto:pablo at tel.lat>>
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] IMPORTANT for MAG Review: Proposed Poll to be launched during IGF
> Date: December 16, 2017 at 2:54:56 PM EST
> To: "Lynn St.Amour" <st.amour at bluewin.ch<mailto:st.amour at bluewin.ch>>
> Cc: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>>, "wg-mwp" <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org<mailto:wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>>
>
> [https://tr.cloudmagic.com/h/v6/emailtag/tag/2.0/1513454096/11fc73abe28610bee4531eca3fd246a5/2/38afe744254afb54724aa54d94740962/46628beca055276797ec516155d8e8a5/8c5043ec7d93bfaac04754c3e6a402d3/newton.gif]Dear Lynn,
>
> I hope you are well.
>
> Despite I agree with the importance of make a process of consultation about the future of IGF with the different stakeholders, at this time I can't support this poll.
> I have some reasons for that.
> 1) the assistants at IGF mainly represent institutions (States, NGO, private sector organizations, tech community) but in many cases, they can't speak in behalf of their institutions without an internal consultation, so I don't believe is useful to make this kind of questions. I suggest reconsider this approach and make the consult to public, private and NG institutions instead of persons.
> 2) there is a problem with the representation of the sample. The participation of the different stakeholders at IGF is not even. So, I can't find how we can extract the right insights of the global internet community with this poll. In that sense, I really prefer to make an online poll at the beginning of the next year, as a support for the agenda of IGF 2018.
> 3) One of my biggest concerns about the future of IGF is the growing lack of interest from governments and the private sector. I think we have to debate inside MAG why this is happening and try to address this issue before make any public consultation. In any case, I believe any consultation must be focused in trying to understand that problem, and I can't see any critic question in the poll. The kind of questions to address the strategic challenges of IGF must be different, IMHO.
> 4) From my point of view, there is a big difference between the governance of internet and the issues (policy) of the internet. The poll takes the approach of consolidating IGF as a forum of many internet related issues. But in my opinion, that we really need is a debate about how the internet is governed, who and how will define the rules of the internet, how to deal with the evident tension between national sovereignty and the global nature of the internet. I don't think this poll attend the real challenges we, as mankind, have ahead.
> 5) There are questions that don't make sense. For example, nobody attending IGF will say he or she is not familiar with IGF and the internet governance debates.
> 6) I believe many of the information we are asking in the poll is already available in the IGF site and in the registration system.
>
> For the reasons I explained, I can't support the proposal.
>
> See you on Geneve!
>
> Pablo
>
> Pablo Bello
> Director Ejecutivo ASIET | cet·la
> pablo at tel.lat<mailto:pablo at tel.lat>
> +34638018987
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:46am, Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at bluewin.ch<mailto: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,
>
>
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wg-mwp mailing list
> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org<mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171217/67c862ae/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list