[Wg-mwp] Session selection proposal

Wout de Natris denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
Mon Nov 20 06:31:17 EST 2017

Dear all,

Going over my notes I realised that I had forgotten to put a thought in writing from a recent VM meeting.

A strategy towards participation of different stakeholders and delivering, relevant and current tangible outcomes has to take into account not only the opportunity to participate, but also the will and the need to do so. How to achieve this? I present two examples as a start of the discussion.

MAG selection process

In order to achieve the latter it is of importance to know the issues playing within each community and once they are identified to give these issues precedence as such. The MAG has identified several stakeholder communities.

At present those able to write the best proposals take the lead and usually the prize, i.e. a workshop. Does this way of working lead to an evenly divided number of slots for stakeholder communities? Are the selected topics the most important for the respective communities to discuss? From comments I hear the answer seems to be no for some. Can this be changed and if so, how?

The MAG could ask the different stakeholder groups for the issues that they see as most prominent for the coming year. Once they are identified each group is invited to present proposals. The best in each group win. There could be a division between "selected" and "free" proposals, so that other issues not foreseen can have a slot as well.

Current intersessional work

At present there are three BPFs and the CTNB. I know first hand that several issues arise during the work towards the IGF that need multistakeholder participation and could lead to urgent, most current and interesting workshops, most likely bringing in missing stakeholders. Unfortunately, there is no option to do so. It is impossible to think up these issues when the work hasn't not yet started. So they remain "hidden" within a BPF.

A BPF gets a one hour slot, while at present this is the tangible outcome. The workshops seldom are. If we discuss making tangible outcomes more prominent it might be worthwhile to discuss how to make the work leading up to an outcome more prominent within the IGF. To make it more interesting for those not participating or even those not present to participate (in the future).

This option could only work e.g. with a few slots in the program that are flexible, to be filled in along the way or with an option to work together during the IGF towards a more elaborate outcome.

I'm sure there are other options as well.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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>


Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171120/99079495/attachment.html>

More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list