[Wg-mwp] Proposed sub-working group charter

Flávio Rech Wagner flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Wed Oct 18 12:27:10 EDT 2017


Dear Jeremy and colleagues

I agree with the proposed charter, except for the suggested text of the 
final paragraph, which proposes that "membership of the sub-working 
group should comprise those who have published academic research or who 
have practical experience of large-scale multi-stakeholder deliberative 
processes on Internet-related technical and/or public policy issues". 
Although such expertise would be valuable and welcome, I don't think it 
should be enforced as a pre-condition for membership of the sub-working 
group. A more "soft" condition, for instance welcoming this expertise, 
could be better. And I would add to the text that expertise with the IGF 
processes would be also very welcome.

Best,

Flavio


Em 17/10/2017 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm escreveu:
> Since I was a proponent of the idea of the sub-working group that we 
> discussed during the last two calls, I've taken it upon myself to put 
> together a draft charter for it, on which your comments are invited.  
> This hopefully gives a bit more clarity and substance to the proposal, 
> so that we can move forward if it seems generally acceptable, or 
> abandon it if not:
>
> This sub-working group's mandate is to produce a short option paper 
> for consideration of the full 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?
>
> As the working group is being convened for its technical expertise, 
> membership of the sub-working group should comprise those who have 
> published academic research or who have practical experience of 
> large-scale multi-stakeholder deliberative processes on 
> Internet-related technical and/or public policy issues. A maximum size 
> of four members is suggested.
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171018/7d1bffc3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list