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

sivasubramanian muthusamy 6.internet at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 12:14:17 EDT 2018


Dear Nigel,

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:11 PM Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
wrote:

> 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.
>

For an outcome to take the shape of a concrete recommendation from the IGF
on a policy topic, it does require a formal consensus process and it takes
time.  The process that you have outlined - especially the thought that a
draft position has to go to the next IGF -  is a logical and fair sequence
for arriving at policy positions / recommendations.

At the same time, there are different classes of IGF outputs.  One would be
a one page summary document from MAG to policy makers, which could be in
reflection of the "mood" of the just concluded IGF.  There could also be
readable summaries that 'roughly' summarize the deliberations on various
topics, aimed for a larger audience. Also, the BPFs and DCs would have
their own outputs. Concerning formal, concrete recommendations from the
IGF, it requires a thorough consensus process along the lines you have
recommended.


> One assumes that to resolve an issue within 30-60 days of an IGF (*and
> what would be that urgent?)*
>

30-60 day time frame is only for outputs on any current, pressing IG issue.


> 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.
>

For "recommendations", yes,  a Working Group and consultation with
stakeholders are required.

Sivasubramanian M


>
>
> 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=
>
>



More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list