[Wg-mwp] [Ext] On engaging MAG, IGF community, Intersessional activities, and NRIs

sivasubramanian muthusamy 6.internet at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 12:23:05 EDT 2018


Dear Nigel,

This outlines a proper sequence for formal outcome or recommendation on a
certain issue that have the time for such a methodical policy approach
(long term issues that don't require quick policy responses). Please also
expand on this suggestion by outlining a process flow for some issues to
progress right out of a just concluded IGF, within 30-60 days, perhaps even
with a 'rough
consensus' or 'rough recommendation' status. We may also need a process or
methods for the MAG to simultaneously examine deliberations from a range of
topic debates across the cross spectrum of work by DCs / BPFs / workshops /
open forums and main sessions (even from speeches by special invitees).

That is a bit too much to aspire for, but we need to get there some day.

Sivasubramanian M




On Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 9:23 PM Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org> wrote:

> Good morning
>
> Thanks for opportunity to comment.
>
> Perhaps I could outline in more simplistic terms how one could potentially
> envisage a strategic plan to have a concrete outcome on a particular issue.
>
> 1. The plan would start with an assessment by the MAG of a topic / issue
> that had significant traction / interest during an IGF, with involvement
> across the stakeholder base.
>
> 2.  Once chosen a WG would need to be established with a Call (in normal
> way); on IGF site; would be chaired by MAG representative;
>
> 3.  WG would develop and overall plan for the discussion of this subject /
> issue along the lines of a Dynamic Coalition perhaps seeking input /
> expertise from elsewhere
>
> 4. Very initial ideas / recommendations on the issue would (after approval
> by MAG) socialised publically and then presented at the following IGF for
> in-depth discussion (with necessary allocation of time etc);
>
> 5.  The WG, taking input from the IGF and the on-line Community would
> develop ideas / recommendations further and work up a detailed consultation
> inter-sessionally;
>
> 6. Subject to MAG approval the consultation would be issued with input
> sought at least 3 months ahead of next IGF, allowing WG time to discuss,
> draft and publish a final Report with Recommendations which would then go
> to the IGF;
>
> 7. At the IGF there would be a special session (with necessary advance
> publicity) to secure broad approval / endorsement of the Recommendations;
> these would just reflect a multistakeholder dialogue, no more than that,
> but would demonstrate the ability of IGF to reach outcomes that can guide
> global policy making;
>
> best
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, 13 August 2018 at 00:05
> To: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: [Ext] [Wg-mwp] On engaging MAG, IGF community, Intersessional
> activities, and NRIs
>
>     Hello,
>
>     Please receive this note on Agenda Topic 3. Together with Lynn, I wish
> to
>     facilitate a discussion on the way forward at our next meeting.
>
>     Agenda Topic 3 in context:
>
>     The WG-MWP charter says:   “... more could be done to take a strategic,
>     long-term view of the role and activities of the IGF...to reinvigorate
> the
>     IGF by taking a longer-term view of particular issues ... achieving
>     concrete outcomes on these over time.  A longer time horizon ...could
> help
>     to bring in new collaborators, including international agencies, and
> new
>     funders. “
>
>     In this context, the Working Group will examine the importance of
> engaging
>     MAG, IGF community, BPFs, DCs and NRIs in the development of a
> multi-year
>     strategic work programme
>
>     On engaging MAG, IGF community and NRIs:
>
>     *MAG: *As stated, the Objectives/Goals of the WG are to "work with the
> full
>     MAG and the IGF community to deliver a “Living Programme” and/or a
> Roadmap
>     for strategic improvements." This task requires insights, responses and
>     action from the MAG. It would be easier if the MAG is even more
> involved in
>     the work of the Working Group. The MAG could pay closer attention to
> the
>     multi-year work plan, especially on topics that require responses and
>     actions from the MAG.
>
>     *NRIs:* NRIs may require better funding and other forms of increased
>     support. It requires at least one leader from any of the NRI
> initiatives to
>     be engaged in this work.
>
>     *BPFs and DCs: * The BPFs and DCs may wish to share proceedings and
>     outcomes industry-wide, globally. For instance the BPF on IXPs may
> wish to
>     take the summary of its deliberations to all IXPs to strive to promote
> the
>     Best Practices far more widely, perhaps even reducing a minimal common
> set
>     of the Best Practices as Global IXP Standards. For this to happen, the
> WG
>     would find it helpful to have representation from the DCs and BPFs; at
>     least one BPF leader and DC leader may be engaged in the work of the
>     Working Group.
>
>     The WG could also have one meeting every year with BPFs, one with DCs,
> one
>     with NRIs with respective focus.
>
>     *IGF Community:  *With Community engagement in planning, various
>     improvements could be discussed, such as making better use of IGF
> Community
>     presence in global Internet events, outreach by News media, new media
> and
>     through institutions such as TED. Community engagement in the form of
>     interactive Roundtable sessions during IGF and other events and through
>     webinars could help the MWP in improving the overall design of the
> IGF. By
>     engagement in the multi-year work program, the community could directly
>     work on IGF's continued Openness, fairness, transparency and
> stakeholder
>     balance.
>
>     The Charter talks about a "predictable" time frame and also mentions "a
>     longer time horizon". If we take 3 years as the "predictable" time
> frame,
>     and 7 years or more as the longer time horizon, the WG could work on a
>     relatively detailed plan for 3 years in the direction of a vision for
> the
>     evolution ahead.
>
>     The way forward for the Working Group with improved engagement:
>
>     If it be the wish of the MAG, NRIs, BPFs and DCs and the broader
> Community
>     to strive for more balanced stakeholder participation in the IGF, to
> strive
>     for Higher level participation, for a well funded global and regional
> IGFs,
>     to  inter-link the NRIs with one another and integrate the work of the
> NRIs
>     more closely with that of the global IGF, to raise the overall stature
> of
>     the IGF and to strive for the global Internet Policy developed with
>     reference to the IGF thinking, for the global Internet policy to
> revolve
>     around IGF outputs and (perhaps even recommendations), and if all of us
>     desire results in terms of preserving the openness and the global
> nature of
>     the Internet, it will require actions from the MAG such as an amplified
>     call for contributions from Governments, business and "new funders".
> With
>     improved engagement, the WG could get to such tasks.
>
>
>
>     Thank you.
>
>
>     Sivasubramanian M
>     _______________________________________________
>     Wg-mwp mailing list
>     Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
>     To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__intgovforum.org_mailman_listinfo_wg-2Dmwp-5Fintgovforum.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=83Ww3t7x7Rk-pwDjcBpQQCoNNfLzfs2zoNVtNmcJ9Sc&s=dktcoX_aLPh3BmyjBXyYt_Dl41GzfnVydUdiIuA0DkQ&e=
>
>



More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list