[Wg-mwp] [Wg-imp] Where (if anywhere) to discuss IGF recommendations?

Tomslin Samme-Nlar mesumbeslin at gmail.com
Tue Sep 5 05:15:01 EDT 2017

Hi Renata,
If I understand your email, are you saying that discussing suggestions like
that which Jeremy proposes are out of scope for the 2017 WGs?


On 5 Sep. 2017 13:58, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello all

Jeremy, thanks for bringing these questions. I think it is important
we deal with tough questions to move forward.

I'd like to offer the view of someone who has been involved "on the
ground" with IGF only since 2015.
So when I read the article you referred, I was a bit puzzled.
I do not see this loss of relevance of the IGF.
In fact, it is becoming more competitive to approve workshops, for instance.
However, working to include more people in internet policy discussions
is a goal shared by all involved.
One of the avenues for this being the intersessional activities. The
WG which has as Multiyear in its name can be a way to address just
that - work on ways these inclusive spaces can be more meaningful and
As for the WG on Improvements, documents from CSTD and IGF Retreat are
being brought.
I see value in the CSTD integration as well as other current IG spaces
where IGF can be brought.

Tomorrow there is MAG meeting. You can see the details in the open archives.
I've asked that the agenda include WGs activities.
But, as I've said, WGs are just about coordinating their work, so I'm
not sure we'll have much to discuss.
I do hope IGF continues to look at these themes and certainly the WGs
in 2018 can pick up on this work.
I hope to contribute and would be glad if you could do it too.
There are so many paths to follow, the challenge is choosing a focus to go



On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> I'm cross-posting to the Working Group on IGF Improvements and the
> Multi-year Strategic Work Programme group, because I'm not sure where
> (if anywhere) to discuss ideas for reform of the IGF that go *beyond*
> the modest suggestions for improvement agreed in the compromise
> conclusions of previous reviews.
> For example, reviewing the working documents of the WG Improvements, it
> seems that only the least controversial suggestions are included,
> whereas the kind of reforms that I've always been more interested in are
> more ambitious reforms relating to the development of policy
> recommendations within the IGF, either using face-to-face deliberative
> democratic methods, and/or innovative online tools (for example:
> http://tools.dcentproject.eu/).
> If these are indeed out of scope for the WG Improvements, is it suitable
> to air these more radical proposals in the Multi-Year Work Programme WG,
> or are these totally outside the "Overton window" of acceptable
> discourse about improvements to the IGF?
> I would hope not, since in my view the IGF continues to face an
> existential crisis of relevance if there is *no* forum to consider more
> radical proposals (see eg. the commentary in
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170731_igf_brexit_moment/ which paints
> the IGF as irrelevant at best, or illustrating a failure of the
> multi-stakeholder model at worst).
> --
> 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-imp mailing list
> Wg-imp at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-imp_intgovforum.org

Wg-imp mailing list
Wg-imp at intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170905/365e6231/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list