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

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Wed Aug 15 04:41:08 EDT 2018


Good morning 

 

Thanks for feedback.  I was trying to outline a process, and accept of course that there would be a number of variants, that ensured an inclusive dialogue of all parties.  

 

Would, I think be difficult for MAG, after an IGF, to simply pick an issue and then conclude Recommendations on that issue without going back to IGF the next time.  One assumes that to resolve an issue within 30-60 days of an IGF (and what would be that urgent?) the MAG would need to establish a Working Group, and that WG would, at least, need to consult stakeholders, before there could be any publication of Recommendations.  

 

Best

 

Nigel 

 

From: sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, 13 August 2018 at 17:23
To: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Cc: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] [Wg-mwp] On engaging MAG, IGF community, Intersessional activities, and NRIs

 

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=

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20180815/8de38546/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list