[Wg-mwp] Proposed sub-working group charter

Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino at gmail.com
Wed Oct 18 14:59:27 EDT 2017


Hi

Why limited to 4 people?
How to ensure equitable representation in this group and community
participation?

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> 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)?
>       - 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?
>       - 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?
>       - 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?
>    - 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 Foundationhttps://[email protected]
>
> 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/20171018/4eeb7fa2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list