[Wg-mwp] Proposed sub-working group charter

GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS HUDER gonzalo.lopezbarajashuder at telefonica.com
Thu Oct 19 05:18:59 EDT 2017


A few additional comments,

                Reading the paragraph 72(g) of the Tunis Agenda, I do not see it fostering any type of recommendation. By this, I mean the recommendation could well be making a call for the community to work on potential policy recommendation / solution to solve specific problems, identifying the problems to be solved. So it is not just limited to providing solutions per se, which could be more troublesome from a perspective of what and how consensus on the solutions are reached at the IGF. This would also be a significant progress for the IGF.
                In fact, Net Mundial, which has been pointed to as a case study of a multistakeholder process producing an output document, stated “NETmundial identified the following non-exhaustive list of points that need better understanding and further discussion in appropriate fora” and included topics such as jurisdictional issues and Net Neutrality on this list.

                Though Jeremy you refer to the kind of outputs in bullet 3, I am not really sure this addresses my concern, and after reading the proposal I get the sense it points to policy recommendations and solutions as the only outcome considered.

                Regarding the limitation to 4 people, I do not see why should we should put any limit. This limitation can only lead to difficulties if more than 4 are interested to join.

                Also, limiting the scope of profiles to join does not seem appropriate.

Kind regards,

                               Gonzalo
[rrss_linkedin]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/10587207?trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertical%3Ashowcase%2CclickedEntityId%3A10587207%2Cidx%3A4-1-14%2CtarId%3A1463053700574%2Ctas%3Atelefonica>[rrss_youtube]<https://www.youtube.com/user/telefpublicpolicy>[Screenshot_2]

De: Wg-mwp [mailto:wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org] En nombre de Renata Aquino Ribeiro
Enviado el: miércoles, 18 de octubre de 2017 20:59
Para: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
CC: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
Asunto: Re: [Wg-mwp] Proposed sub-working group charter

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<mailto: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 Foundation

https://eff.org

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

_______________________________________________
Wg-mwp mailing list
Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org<mailto:Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org


________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171019/441223b4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1491 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171019/441223b4/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1752 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171019/441223b4/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1731 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171019/441223b4/attachment-0005.jpg>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list