[Wg-mwp] Fwd: WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status Report

GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS HUDER gonzalo.lopezbarajashuder at telefonica.com
Wed Nov 7 05:37:59 EST 2018

Dear Jeremy,

I do not claim that our task is to decide if the proposals are taken forward or not; in fact the proposal have been presented to the MAG and the report makes them available. It is MAG deciding what next steps should be.

But certainly It is a factual information that there was not consensus on the proposals. It is a relevant information that  should also be communicated clearly to the MAG. The same way the proposals are communicated for transparency purposes, this info should also be put in knowledge of the MAG. This is the aim of the Status report, informing for the MAG to have a clear picture. Otherwise, why should we say the proposals have been reviewed by the WG if we do not give any indication of the outcome of the review process? Otherwise, the fact that they have been reviewed by the WG is irrelevant, unless the aim is to give the perception review=validation.

Gonzalo Lopez-Barajas | Telefónica, S.A.
g.lopezbarajas at telefonica.com
Office: (+34) 91 482 88 10
Mobile: (+34) 629 59 24 48

-----Mensaje original-----
De: SUTO Timea <Timea.SUTO at iccwbo.org>
Enviado el: miércoles, 7 de noviembre de 2018 10:56
Para: wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
CC: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at malcolm.id.au>; Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl>; Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>; GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS HUDER <gonzalo.lopezbarajashuder at telefonica.com>
Asunto: RE: [Wg-mwp] Fwd: WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status Report

Dear colleagues,

Thank you all for the reflections on the edits we provided to the first draft and the discussion - all very helpful perspectives to move us along in these last 100 meters before the finish line and get us to a report that we can all be happy with to present to the MAG (the old and the new). Special thanks to Lynn for the time and dedication to find a path forward (I don't know where her extra energy reserves are stored!).

I agree with the points raised by Lynn in her message from yesterday. In our reporting we are required to show what proposals the WG considered in its work this year - as she says "those options are still open and a number of WG members want to continue exploring them". At the same time, we need to be fully transparent and factual in our reporting, since there clearly wasn't and isn't  "WG consensus possible on these pilots this year (for several reasons)".

I take Gonzalo's edits in this spirit. To provide clarity on the WG deliberations at all junctures the proposals are mentioned in the report (not just at the end) and to note these proposals were considered but not endorsed by all. There is a difference in the WG putting proposals forward and some members of the WG wishing to do so. Especially for someone getting acquainted with or work for the first time through this status report. So, I would agree with his suggestions to refine the text a little.

Correct me if I misinterpret, but I don't take it Gonzalo suggests we don't share the proposals at all. In fact they are already on the WG's section of the IGF website.

Jeremy, Wout, I hope that you would consider taking a second look at these edits in this spirit and we can find a path forward from here and have a report for the MAG's attention.

With many thanks and kind regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Wout de Natris [mailto:denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 11:58 PM
To: Jeremy Malcolm; wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] Fwd: WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status Report

Dear all,

I must agree with Jeremy that there is no agreement or disagreement. There are simply proposals and options to be put before the MAG. Nothing more, nothing less, exactly as we were (t)asked to do.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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>


Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at malcolm.id.au>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 8:07 PM
To: wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] Fwd: WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status Report

On 11/6/18 10:49 AM, GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS HUDER wrote:

> 2- Regarding reference to Synmind in the last section of the paper Recommendations from this WG, the wording seems also in need of clarification. Despite the contact with Synmind was made with only a few of the members of the WG, it seems not clear that some members did not support this course of action. I would recommend the following:
> " Some of the WG members proposed for the MAG to explore the possibility of using a professionally facilitated process in 2019 and and discussed with Synmind an offer to provide an online/offline facilitated process for the IGF community. The WG did not agree on this proposal."

I am not comfortable with this edit since at this point it is not our place to agree or disagree with it, but simply to put it before the new MAG.

> Finally, not specific to the Status Report, regarding Wout's comments I fully agree in not converting the IGF into a some sort of negotiation or pseudo treaty body.
> But it is my view that words point to one direction and actions into some other. The minute we start talking about deliberative polls, sensing the temperature for consensus building and alike processes this certainly points to voting. And when there is voting, there are always text negotiations.

I can assure you that this assumption is simply not true, though. During my PhD studies I spent three years looking into deliberative democratic methodologies that do not require text negotiations or voting, yet can still deliver outputs. Several of these are mentioned in the Annex, and I would be happy to provide you with some further reading.

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -

Wg-mwp mailing list
Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
Wg-mwp mailing list
Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org


Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list