[Wg-mwp] Comments on WG-MWP work and proposal on IGF outputs

Wout de Natris denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
Tue Nov 7 05:03:26 EST 2017

Dear all,

Before I send an email in response to the current discussion, allow me first to explain my position in the group, so you understand that I am not just speaking in a personal capacity.

Currently I am hired as consultant by seven Internet related organisations. Most are involved in other fora of Internet Governance, besides (NL)IGF. The background ranges from technical community to industry. They have hired me to agendize the topic of strengthened cooperation within the context of the IGF. They all feel in their own way that the potential of the IGF is underused. Several indicated they were sincerely disappointed with the level of ambition the Mexico IGF showed at the start of the new ten year cycle. They have the ambition to see the IGF make a difference and not just be a talking shop.

Three questions were formulated. 1) Is the IGF capable of delivering or coordinate in finding solutions to complex Internet Governance issues involving multiple stakeholders? 2) Is the IGF community willing to work together on finding solutions? 3) If yes, under what conditions can this be realised?

A challenge can be any topic the community chooses, but topics discussed internally comprised e.g. ICT product security by design and the global harmonisation of Duties of Care in ICT.

When I received an invite through the IGF secretariat to participate in this WG, one of the seven organisations decided to fund me for this work, from the angle I just shared with you.

I expect this explains my involvement some more.

Kind regards,

Wout de Natris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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

From: Wg-mwp <wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 7:35 AM
To: wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] Comments on WG-MWP work and proposal on IGF outputs

On 6/11/17 9:08 am, SUTO Timea wrote:
In our opinion, it is premature to ask the WG-MWP to work on the proposal put forward. We view it as rather a possible solution offered in response to some of the recommendations currently being evaluated by WG-IMP that call for more “tangible outcomes”.  In our understanding, discussions on this proposal are out of place in that it would add new work items  and detract from the important work the WG-MWP should address as a priority – notably contributing to the strategic deployment of existing activities.

For this reason we suggest the proposal should rather  be discussed sequentially following the assessment of the WG-IMP and considered in view of all other proposals and recommendations already made to improve the IGF by exploring “tangible outcomes”.

Even so, there are some people who want to get working on it now.  There is no harm in them doing so.  In fact, it is probably better that work begin on it now, so that the option paper is ready to be presented once it is ready for the working group to begin to address it sequentially.

Discussing this proposal in WG-MWP not only overlaps with the work of WG-IMP, but also circumvents the mandate and work of WG-IMP and creates a scenario where this particular proposal is leapfrogging others already made in the past years through open and collaborative channels.

I don't think it's quite accurate to characterise it as a "particular proposal" that is "leapfrogging others".  Rather than being a single proposal as this suggests, it's an attempt to consider in very broad terms a range of possible activities, approaches, or methodologies that we *aren't* currently using... to add to the consideration of those we already are.

Other than from ICC BASIS it was my sense of the last two meetings that we had a rough consensus in favour of at least doing that much.  It had seemed, after so long, that we were finally advancing in the level of ambition of what we could even *discuss*.  It would be a shame if this discussion were to be blocked.

Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171107/2c3b1d2b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list