[Wg-mwp] Ideas for further discussion - A POLL AMONG THE IGF GLOBAL PARTICIPANTS

Norbert Bollow norbert at digitale-gesellschaft.ch
Tue Oct 24 06:06:59 EDT 2017


I very much like the idea of a poll among IGF participants.

Greetings,
Norbert


On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 19:19:51 +0000
"Mazzone, Giacomo" <mazzone at ebu.ch> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Following the debate we had and the exchange that followed, here it
> is in writing my proposal I made orally during the confcall.
> 
> Our working group is trying to figure out what could be a pluriannual
> working plan for the MAG and for the IGF, in execution of the UNGA
> mandate of 2016. Who else is better placed to do so than the whole
> population of the next IGF in Geneva ? there we shall have, we hope,
> a couple of thousands of people dealing from all over the world with
> the IG related issues, plus, we hope, some international
> organization, that usual don't deal with these issues, but will be
> attracted by the debate.
> 
> Why don't use this opportunity to consult the participants on what
> they think could be the better agenda for a multi-year plan ? We have
> enough expertise to know how to deal with a gigantic doodle on these
> matters , don't you think so ? We can make it fully open (no
> boundaries and ask everybody to express its priorities and its
> schedule according to its needs freewheelin'. Or we can try to
> channel these answers through some boundaries in order to make easier
> the analysis and to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. Of course
> MAG could be a perfect textbed for this streamlining of the topics.
> But I think that in the scope of WG there is to go ahead even if the
> MAG is not ready to do this preliminary selection.
> 
> Just as a rough idea, please find here below a preliminary draft of
> how the questions could look like: And of course dozen of variants
> are possible, such as  quoting what a friend said brainstorming on
> this idea: we could also (and first) poll the MAG as they are meant
> to advise the SG on behalf of the broader IGF community.  This would
> also give our work this year a good start.  And we would compare
> against the broader community.  Perhaps the WG could draft a poll for
> the current MAG to complete? I find also this an excellent way to
> proceed.
> 
> Food for thoughts for our next confcall.
> 
> Best
> Giacomo
> 
> 
> 
> > PROPOSAL FOR A POLL CONSULTATION DURING THE IGF:
> 
> >
> 
> > (if we leave the answers open)
> 
> >
> 
> > QUESTION 1:
> 
> > Which are the most urgent problems that the Governance of the
> > Internet need to tackle ?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what or who is meant by the "Governance of the
> Internet",  do you mean the IGF or the IGF plus intersessional
> activities (IGF ecosystem?)?
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> > 1), 2) 3) 4, 5)
> 
> >
> 
> > [please list in order of priority]
> 
> >
> 
> > QUESTION 2:
> 
> > Based on your experience and knowledge of the IG current debate,
> > which one of the above mentioned problems could be solved ?
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> IG issues rather than IG debate?  And solved is very difficult as
> with so many of the complex issues, they are never actually solved,
> the problem space evolves.  Thinking about cybersecurity, for
> example.  Maybe "addressed" or "advanced" rather than solved?
> 
> 
> 
> > 1), 2) 3) 4, 5)
> 
> >
> 
> > [please list with 1-2-3-4-5 those that you think could be solved]
> 
> >
> 
> > QUESTION 3:
> 
> > How long could take for you to solve your priority n.1 (see
> > question 2)
> 
> >
> 
> > 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, god knows ?
> 
> >
> 
> > QUESTIONS 4:
> 
> > Which of the existing international bodies could be part of the
> > solution to  this problem ?
> 
> >
> 
> > IGF  WSIS ITU ICANN UNGA/CSTD g7 g20  / None of them / Somebody else
> 
> 
> 
> this question could be specific to each issue identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Wg-mwp [mailto:wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of
> Wout de Natris Sent: jeudi 19 octobre 2017 16:56
> To: wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> Subject: [Wg-mwp] Ideas for further discussion
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> 
> Following up on our excellent discussion just now I would like to
> share some initial ideas to contemplate as potential ways forward and
> to find engagement from (now absent) stakeholders. They are presented
> pointwise only and can be elaborated upon when taken up as relevant
> suggestions.
> 
> 
> 1) Find solutions and ways forward for complex issues concerning
> Internet Governance involving several stakeholder groups within the
> context of the IGF; 2) Compile current best practices from around the
> globe and translate them into guides for the world to learn from on
> selected topics; 3) Bring stakeholders together around a specific
> topic, aimed at formulating potential solutions and find support for
> implementation of said within multiple stakeholder groups; 4) To
> involve absent stakeholders by:
> 
>   *   find and address the topics that entice them to join;
>   *   formulate invitations to join in a personalised way;
>   *   an active invitation policy through present stakeholders.
> 5) Let stakeholders decide on what the best format for their
> respective challenge is, whether a BPF, Working or Expert
> Parties/Groups, brainstorm sessions, mailing lists, ??? as they see
> fit; 6) Decide whether there is room within the IGF for spontaneous
> action between stakeholders or that all needs to go through the MAG
> first; 7) Establish whether IGF funding issues change when the
> "right" topics are addressed so that the secretariat can supply
> support functions to all groups: What topic or call for action would
> make you support the IGF financially? 8) If there are several,
> different initiatives around the globe, within different
> organisations, around the same topic, could the IGF have a liaising
> role between these organisations or better, assume a coordinative
> role and bring them together? 9) Please follow up with your ideas.
> 
> 
> In my opinion there is a need to not only discuss the topic of
> strategic mulityear workplan from a theoretical point of view. Those
> not engaged now, will not engage from theory. There has to be an
> element of "yes, you will get to work on ways forward, on solutions,
> etc." Only through the practical, aloof or absent stakeholders may be
> enticed to deliver input. From the moment it helps them find
> solutions to their respective issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking forward to hear your ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Die Digitale Gesellschaft setzt sich für unsere Freiheitsrechte
in einer vernetzten Welt ein. Ja, http://digiges.ch/ichmachemit

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171024/2f2fb7cc/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list