[Wg-mwp] Revised drafting committee charter

Jeremy Malcolm jmalcolm at eff.org
Tue Oct 31 09:55:41 EDT 2017

Based on the minutes of the last call, it seems like few revisions to
the charter are required except for changing the name of the group from
"sub-working group" to "drafting committee", and dropping the
specification about who and how many people should be part of it. So,
here is the charter again with those two revisions:

This drafting committee's mandate is to produce a short option paper for
consideration of the working group, outlining a range of possible
approaches towards the fulfilment of the IGF's mandate from paragraph
72(g) of the Tunis Agenda to "Identify emerging issues, bring them to
the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where
appropriate, make recommendations."

Without prejudging that any changes from current practice are necessary,
the option paper should address:

  * What factors would make it more or less appropriate for the IGF to
    produce an output addressing a particular policy issue in
    conformance with its mandate in section 72(g)?
      o For example—strong and broad consensus around the issue, no
        other multi-stakeholder body directly addressing the issue
  * Are existing mechanisms for the developments of outputs within the
    IGF (eg. Dynamic Coalitions or Best Practice Fora) appropriate for
    the generation of draft text on such an issue from the IGF?
      o If not, what new mechanisms (such as expert working groups, or
        participatory political processes such as the "citizens jury",
        etc.) could be used to develop such draft text?
  * What form or forms could these outputs of the IGF take that would be
    consistent with its status as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy
    dialogue through a non-binding process?
      o For example, are Internet technical community processes of
        offering voluntarily-adopted "Requests for Comment" applicable?
  * Once draft text has been produced, what kinds of further process
    could allow for the IGF as a plenary body to meaningfully consider
    and provide feedback on it, and what institutional reforms to the
    IGF would be necessary to support that process?
  * What should be the threshold standard for the publication of a text
    as such an output of the IGF?
      o For example, would it be necessary to achieve a "rough
        consensus" standard within the community of registered on-site
        and online IGF participants?

Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
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/20171031/899fda45/attachment.html>

More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list