[Wg-mwp] BPF proposal on AI, IOT and Big Data
Wout de Natris
denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
Fri May 4 01:25:30 EDT 2018
Being on holiday I get (too) late to the discussion it seems. My apologies, but as this is the WG, will send in my two cents anyway.
I agree that the topics are extremely broad and most likely covered in other places around the globe already. At the same time they come from genuine concerns, concerning all stakeholder groups within the IGF and the general public in several ways.
At the same time at the last Geneva March meeting of the MAG, making the IGF more meaningful has been discussed extensively and the need for change was widely felt.
So here we have two hugely challenging topics, the will to make a difference and considerable resource restraints. The answer is to provide focus and MAG leadership, as many participants in the report on 'Strengthening cooperation within the IGF' called for.
My experience tells me that when a BPF starts with just a title, it is underway for a year with people just trying to figure out a direction, with many people drifting away, a few setting the tone and not many people that also, truly need to engage present.
So, the main question should not be on resources, but on what is it that the MAG wants the BPF or whatever form it takes to get there, to achieve? Who needs to be on board to achieve this? Who is able to provide or co-fund a secretariat/consultant function?
So if we discuss IoT e.g. should it be on security and if so what measures would make the users and world safer? Does that take a BPF, or working group, tackling specific sub-topics that come together at the IGF? Do we need to reach out to exerternal organisations with existing expertise?
The same goes for AI. Is about ethics, about losing jobs, about a lack of education programs?, etc.
About the DCs, these programs are 100% voluntary in the sense that there is no paid support. It takes dedication to write reports etc., without any secretarial support. That is something to be considered when depending on them when the IGF wants to be more decisive where outcomes are concerned. Again, are there options to support this work from within IGF membership?
If there are to be BPFs, a sub set of calls for specific workshops could be attached to that BPF. So let's say 4 workshops each with interactive, and interactively prepared, workshops all feeding into the final report. That provides focus, outcomes and gives the opportunity to bring in experts from all stakeholder groups to deliver their points of views, solutions, etc. Also it provides an opportunity to connect existing work, "look over the top" for topics now discussed that need connecting and deliver a report that is acceptable to all involved to carry on from.
So, in short: focus, leadership and responsibility within the MAG once the choice is made. A to be hired consultant is not equipped nor is it his/her role to bring those necessary to be involved to the IGF. MAG members are or ought to be.
Wout de Natris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
De Natris Consult
Kamerlingh Onnesstraat 43 Tel: +31 648388813
2014 EK Haarlem Skype: wout.de.natris
denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl<mailto:denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl>
From: Wg-mwp <wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org> on behalf of Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 5:59 PM
To: Lynn St.Amour; wg-mwp
Subject: [Wg-mwp] BPF proposal on AI, IOT and Big Data
Good afternoon; I also share concerns that have been raised by Flavio and Jim.
We have to really have a focus on strategic aims / goals for IGF; and recognise the limited resources at our disposal (not least the volunteers….).
On this specific issue we also, of course, already have the successful, and on-going, BPF on IOT.
From: Wg-mwp <wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org> on behalf of "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>
Date: Wednesday, 2 May 2018 at 21:43
To: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Wg-mwp] [IGFmaglist] BPF proposal on AI, IOT and Big Data
Thank you Jim and Flávio,
very helpful comments and some additional ideas so much appreciated. Will input as appropriate into the MAG discussion.
Jim, to answer your resource question. The “working expectation” is for a total of 4 efforts to be supported by consultants — likely to be 3 BPFs and CENB, but could be 4 BPFs. And, there is no automatic grandfathering of past BPFs so could be any 3 (or 4).
Hope this is clear.
> On May 2, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Flávio Rech Wagner <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br> wrote:
> Dear Lynn
> I also thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal, as a non MAG member.
> I agree with Jim that this effort seems extremely broad and ambitious, apparently more than other themes that have been covered by BPFs. Besides, as the proposal itself concedes, there are many other groups (entities, forums, ...) also discussing those issues, so that I do not know whether this BPF would represent a better channel to achieve concrete conclusions and recommendations.
> Please notice that one of such groups is hosted by the IGF itself, as we already have a Dynamic Coalition on IoT, which exists since 2008 and delivered a report in 2017. You may find it here:
> Please notice also that the aim of this DC is exactly to propose "IoT good practice policies", aiming at "a multistakeholder position on an ethical approach towards IoT development and deployment" (citing the DC report itself). This seems to partially overlap with the proposed BPF in terms of both scope and goals.
> Of course it is not the role of this WG-MWP to discuss the merits of this BPF proposal, but to analyze how it fits into a multi-year planning for the IGF. In this sense, I would partially second Jim's proposal, namely to launch this effort using a different mechanism, thus allowing the proposers and other interested parties "a year to further shape and narrow the focus of this effort which is extremely broad and ambitious" (citing Jim's words). This would also help them better define the particular role and goals of this BPF (or alternative type of intersessional work) considering the various other groups already discussing the same issues in the internacional ecosystem, and in particular the Dynamic Coalition already in place.
> Whether a dynamic coalition is the adequate mechanism to embrace this effort in its early stage, as proposed by Jim, I'm not sure.
> In the future, maybe these topics (AI, IoT, big data) could be covered by a CENB-like effort. As I already suggested in previous comments to this WG-MWP, I am not sure whether the CENB effort should last for many more years. Even if this is the case, maybe we could have two such intersessional efforts running in parallel.
>> Hi Lynn - thanks for the chance to weigh in as a non MAG member of the WG
>> I'm not going to get into the merits of the topics because I am under the impression the WG-MWP doesn’t get into that. My understanding is that we develop recommended frameworks, clear processes and guidelines/standards for work streams, so that the topical program can be built by the community in bottom-up and balanced fashion with a higher degree of predictability and accountability of the process.
>> I apologize if this was covered on the last MAG call which I was not able to observer but I have a question about resourcing. How many BPFs are going to be supported by the secretariat this year? Is it still 3 with CENB as a pseudo 4th? Or would this be in addition to the 3 already in place from last year?
>> If it means extending secretariat support beyond what they were able to handle last year, I would recommend launching this effort as a dynamic coalition the first year to 1) minimize the resource demands on the Secretariat until such time as the financial pressures are alleviated and 2) allow them a year to further shape and narrow the focus of this effort which is extremely broad and ambitious.
>> My sense is that next year some of the existing BFs will have run their course and that will allow for some new ones, possibly this one, to work their way into the rotation. And hopefully some of the resource issues will be on their way to being solved as well.
>> Jim Prendergast
>> The Galway Strategy Group
>> +1 202 285 3699
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wg-mwp <wg-mwp-bounces at intgovforum.org> On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 11:32 PM
>> To: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
>> Subject: [Wg-mwp] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] BPF proposal on AI, IOT and Big Data
>> Dear Working Group members,
>> please see the below “food for thought”. This was sent to the MAG as we need to take a decision Wednesday on whether or not to charter a BPF on AI, IOT and Big Data. At the same time, I wanted to send to the WG for review and comments, even while this years WG is not yet fully established (the charter was approved by the MAG, and all details are posted on the IGF website, but it still needs to be more broadly communicated).
>> Look forward to your thoughts.
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] BPF proposal on AI, IOT and Big Data
>>> Date: May 1, 2018 at 11:06:14 PM EDT
>>> To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>>> Dear Concettina, Sumon,
>>> first, thank you for your willingness to look into merging the two proposals. It was very helpful, and I think you have done a good job with very complex and very large topics.
>>> Please take the below as food for thought only.. and I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well as that of all MAG members.
>>> As I said, I think you have done a good job in the BPF proposal with very complex and broad topics. At the same time, I find myself wondering if there might be an intersection between the work of the Working Group: Multiyear Strategic Work Programmme (WG-MWP) and some of these topics. The topics suggested for the BPF are all important, all are broad topics, and still largely in an early stage.
>>> This would be a good opportunity to take a careful look at the entire IGF ecosystem and build a robust multi-year program for some/all of these topics. The WG would consider other topics too.
>>> An outcome of the WG might be a proposal for a BPF or BPFs in future years, but we would also look at other IGF and non-IGF vehicles/partnerships to advance the issues. In parallel, we could start some of the stocktaking activities proposed in the BPF, with the advantage that we would also be building a more comprehensive effort across and beyond the IGF ecosystem with the IGF community.
>>> Very much looking forward to your thoughts.
>>> Best regards,
>>>> On Apr 23, 2018, at 7:17 AM, CASSA Concettina <cassa at agid.gov.it> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> please find attached the new BPF proposal on Artificial Intelligence, IOT and Big Data. I and Sumon, we merged the two previous proposals.
>>>> During the next virtual meeting we can decide whether having one proposal that integrated the previous ones or to leave them separately .
>>>> Concettina Cassa
>>>> Area Innovazione della Pubblica Amministrazione Servizio Internet
>>>> Governance Viale Liszt, 21 - 00144 Roma Tel. 06.85264442 Mobile
>>>> 328.0414079 cassa at agid.gov.it www.agid.gov.it<http://www.agid.gov.it> twitter @AgidGov
>>>> <AI IOT AND BIG DATA BPF proposal 21 april
>>>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>>>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> Wg-mwp mailing list
>> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
>> Wg-mwp mailing list
>> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner Tel: +55-51-3308 9494
> Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Fax: +55-51-3308 7308
> Instituto de Informática E-mail: flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
> Porto Alegre, Brasil URL: www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio<http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio>
> Wg-mwp mailing list
> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
Wg-mwp mailing list
Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Wg-mwp