[Wg-mwp] Some input for the discussion

Anupam Agrawal anupam.agrawal at tcs.com
Mon Oct 30 23:18:39 EDT 2017

Dear All,

I would like to second the comment of Wout's on less participation by 
traditional industry. You don't find them in IGF as most of them are happy 
to get represented through one or the other industry forums. It is 
important to have them participate more readily in these discussions.

Additionally, there are reports from the likes of Gartner/ IDC (No 
preference - just for reference) which tells say the top ten areas which 
are of important for the board of the traditional companies. These areas 
of important when mapped to IGF workings and discussions will definitely 
allow more traction. Example of the issues can be Internet Jurisdiction 
issues/ discussion, data governance which have the potential to get the 
eyeballs.Reaching out rather than doing the poll in IGF will allow more 
insights into what should be the path forward.

Best Regards, 
Anupam Agrawal 

| Corporate Industry Forums & Standards Cell | Tata Consultancy Services | 
T: +91 33 6636 8561; VOIP: 433 8561; M: +91 990 399 2838 | 

From:   Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl>
To:     "wg-mwp at intgovforum.org" <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
Date:   30-10-2017 19:18
Subject:        [Wg-mwp] Some input for the discussion
Sent by:        "Wg-mwp" <wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org>

Dear all,

Following all the excellent ideas and suggestions I’d like to add the 
Giacomo’s idea to do a poll among the IGF’s participants is an excellent 
one. Yes, it is easy to think of many reasons not to do it, fact is we 
have the opportunity to pick people’s minds at the moment they are in the 
middle of an IGF and full of ideas, challenges and solutions. With the 
right set of questions the outcomes could get this discussion further, 
including better chances for success as initial support could be for the 
taking as well.
There is a second side to this discussion. Those not or only marginally 
participating. One of our discussions focuses on how to tie 
non-participating organisations to the IGF. This can only be through the 
incorporation of their interests to the IGF. In order to find out more we 
need to aim part of our activities outside of the current pool of 
participants. The BPF Cyber Security is doing this as we speak by asking 
the current participants to provide names of relevant relations currently 
not involved in the BPF and reach out to them directly, in search of input 
and participation. Can we arrange this within this WG?
The third side is the concern that has been voiced about 
governments/policy makers and by industry.

Concerning governments. The concerns voiced are valid. A civil servant 
cannot speak impulsively about policy and cannot share what is not 
supported by his government. It is another question to find out what sort 
of participation within the IGF would actually assist governments in their 
work (and in reverse what contributions by governments would make others 
more attracted to this work)? We ought to involve governments directly in 
this WG and/or ask them directly.
Concerning industry. One of the reasons I was told through the years of 
industry not participating in the IGF is “they are busy making money”. 
Hence we only see the big Internet corporations at the IGF but very little 
“traditional” industry, no matter how much the Internet and its related 
topics affect them and their respective businesses. Recently we were told 
in this WG that pursuing our current route of thinking would make the IGF 
of (even) less interest to business. That would make it of importance to 
learn what topics would be of less interest for industry but even more to 
learn what would make the IGF of crucial interest for industry. We can 
only arrive at conclusions when we have the opportunity to find out 
directly. Also I would like to learn for what part of industry this line 
of thinking and work would make the IGF of less interest. Inviting 
industry representatives to participate in this WG is a good way forward.
Another topic to think through is participation in general. It is 
impossible for all to come to the IGF. What would be an ideal situation is 
when representatives from specific organisations liaise between the IGF’s 
BPFs or working groups, etc. and their respective constituents so that 
input always comes through and results go down. In this way end results 
come a longer way and carry a broader, initial support. This could work 
for any topic where different stakeholders have to work and agree on. 
Those wishing to be more active have to be pointed towards the BPFs and 
Working Groups.
I may not be back in time Thursday for the VM due to sorrowful 
circumstances. If so have a good meeting and I will catch up later.

Kind regards,

Wout de Natris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
De Natris Consult
Kamerlingh Onnesstraat 43       Tel: +31 648388813 
2014 EK Haarlem               Skype: wout.de.natris

denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl


Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com
Wg-mwp mailing list
Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org

Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
message and/or attachments to it may contain 
confidential or privileged information. If you are 
not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, 
review, distribution, printing or copying of the 
information contained in this e-mail message 
and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If 
you have received this communication in error, 
please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and 
immediately and permanently delete the message 
and any attachments. Thank you

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171031/89473bf4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list