[Wg-mwp] Proposal on IGF programme framework

Danko Jevtović danko at jevtovic.rs
Fri May 25 08:52:01 EDT 2018

Thank you very much. This is very good introduction for new WG members.

Looking forward to today's meeting.

Regards/Pozdrav, Danko Jevtović
danko at jevtovic.rs http://www.jevtovic.rs/
fb.com/dankoj linkedin.com/in/dankoj
twitter.com/dankoj Skype:callto:dankoj
USA: (702)487.9966 
mobile: +381-(0)65/349-6666

-----Original Message-----
From: SUTO Timea <Timea.SUTO at iccwbo.org> 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:42 PM
To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>; wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
Subject: [Wg-mwp] Proposal on IGF programme framework

Dear Lynn, colleagues,

Ahead of our first working group call of this year later today, I am writing to reiterate some of the points I raised last year in relation to our work.

As we've discussed numerous times, including at the first MAG meeting in March, a number of offshoot activities from the global IGF event have emerged (such as BPFs, DCs, NRIs, CENB), mainly in pursuit of improvements to the IGF. As these have come about in a more organic fashion and are in many cases competing for similar resources, the Working Group on Multi-year strategic work plan for the IGF presents an opportunity for the community to consider the IGF event and these component parts with more of a strategic and longer term perspective. This MAG working group has a unique opportunity to provide a common framework and coherent work plan covering expected major areas of work for the IGF as well as for all intersessional activities, and including support requirements/expectations.

A very good first step in this direction is the mapping exercise this WG did with the help of the Secretariat of all the IGF activities and work streams, related resources and responsibilities. This is indeed a very valuable resource, especially for new community members looking to get a comprehensive overview of all IGF endeavors. I would like to encourage this working group to build on this resource and move it forward from a "list" of separate activities into a comprehensive framework. For this we would also need to consider where the linkages between these different work streams are, how could they feed into each-other and how they can be arranged into a self-sustaining process that generically moves from one IGF cycle to another with minor additional action. I believe that if we can build such a framework, we can easily leave it up to the community to populate it in a bottom-up manner with the issues they wish to discuss, without tasking the MAG with the complicated and perhaps at times controversial job of estimating and projecting ahead the topics the community would/should discuss.

A first scheme/skeleton of such a framework is attached, listing the existing inputs to the IGF work (in blue) and the existing outputs (in orange) and attempting to identify the channels through which the two can be linked (green). This model also looks at how the outputs of one IGF cycle can become the inputs for the next, thus keeping the IGF moving and the community engaged between MAGs.

I'd like to invite the WG to take a look at this draft, consider systematically at which junctures the process works well, where there is need for further guidance and decision-making by the MAG.
By considering this chain of action and accountability of all IGF activities I believe we could come up with a common action plan with defined processes and responsibilities and frameworks for decision-making. A sort-of IGF "user guide" laying down methods and practices for the IGF and indicating where community input is needed, how that input makes its way through the different work streams with the MAG's guidance and how that is developed into tangible outputs, that in turn can become the input for a next cycle and/or a resource for the community and other IG processes. At most of these junctures we can build on the advice of the sub working-group on the options paper and we could brainstorm on what kind of projects our outreach exercises would be needed to consult the community or to raise further awareness (such as the poll we discussed at the end of last year). Such an action plan would benefit the IGF and could help clarify what isn't well understood or what makes aspects of the IGF feel confusing or less accessible for the community.

Once this common action plan is completed, careful consideration should be given to assess the needed resources for its implementation (financial resources, staffing, expertise, etc.). Then, the working group could make some recommendations to the WG on fundraising, and assess resources needed and consider the feasibility of the activities taking into consideration their return on the required input and investment in the allocated timeframe.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. I look forward to our discussion.

Kind regards,

Timea Suto
Assistant Policy Manager
Commission on the Digital Economy / BASIS International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
33-43 Avenue President Wilson, 75016 Paris, France
+33 (0) 1 49 53 33 89  | 
+timea.suto at iccwbo.org<mailto:timea.suto at iccwbo.org> | www.iccwbo.org<http://www.iccwbo.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5524 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20180525/3cccab56/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list