[Wg-mwp] Some input for the discussion

Wout de Natris denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
Mon Oct 30 09:46:58 EDT 2017


Dear all,

Following all the excellent ideas and suggestions I’d like to add the following.

Giacomo’s idea to do a poll among the IGF’s participants is an excellent one. Yes, it is easy to think of many reasons not to do it, fact is we have the opportunity to pick people’s minds at the moment they are in the middle of an IGF and full of ideas, challenges and solutions. With the right set of questions the outcomes could get this discussion further, including better chances for success as initial support could be for the taking as well.

There is a second side to this discussion. Those not or only marginally participating. One of our discussions focuses on how to tie non-participating organisations to the IGF. This can only be through the incorporation of their interests to the IGF. In order to find out more we need to aim part of our activities outside of the current pool of participants. The BPF Cyber Security is doing this as we speak by asking the current participants to provide names of relevant relations currently not involved in the BPF and reach out to them directly, in search of input and participation. Can we arrange this within this WG?

The third side is the concern that has been voiced about governments/policy makers and by industry.

Concerning governments. The concerns voiced are valid. A civil servant cannot speak impulsively about policy and cannot share what is not supported by his government. It is another question to find out what sort of participation within the IGF would actually assist governments in their work (and in reverse what contributions by governments would make others more attracted to this work)? We ought to involve governments directly in this WG and/or ask them directly.

Concerning industry. One of the reasons I was told through the years of industry not participating in the IGF is “they are busy making money”. Hence we only see the big Internet corporations at the IGF but very little “traditional” industry, no matter how much the Internet and its related topics affect them and their respective businesses. Recently we were told in this WG that pursuing our current route of thinking would make the IGF of (even) less interest to business. That would make it of importance to learn what topics would be of less interest for industry but even more to learn what would make the IGF of crucial interest for industry. We can only arrive at conclusions when we have the opportunity to find out directly. Also I would like to learn for what part of industry this line of thinking and work would make the IGF of less interest. Inviting industry representatives to participate in this WG is a good way forward.

Another topic to think through is participation in general. It is impossible for all to come to the IGF. What would be an ideal situation is when representatives from specific organisations liaise between the IGF’s BPFs or working groups, etc. and their respective constituents so that input always comes through and results go down. In this way end results come a longer way and carry a broader, initial support. This could work for any topic where different stakeholders have to work and agree on. Those wishing to be more active have to be pointed towards the BPFs and Working Groups.

I may not be back in time Thursday for the VM due to sorrowful circumstances. If so have a good meeting and I will catch up later.

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>

http://www.denatrisconsult.nl

Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171030/e79cfae5/attachment.html>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list