[Wg-mwp] On concerns expressed about the perceived MAG approval processes for DCs and NRIs
6.internet at gmail.com
Sat Apr 6 18:09:02 EDT 2019
Some concerns were expressed by participants of DCs and the leaders of the
National and Regional Initiatives, pertaining to the import of a diagram
referenced in a recent mail message on the Multi-year work program list.
The original mail message was posted with a link to the diagram
http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/5075/1259 (as a
link), together with a document summarizing the work of the MWP (as an
attachment). The mail-server stripped the attachment, which wasn't noticed
for a while and somehow it took almost a week for this missing document
sent again, this time as a link:
The document and the diagram (though the diagram is not intended to
represent any summary of recommendations from the MWP), if viewed together,
might not have caused as much concerns as has arisen.
The concerns expressed pertained to the part in the diagram that said "MAG
approval process" for DCs and NRIs.
is a clearer summary of the work of the MWP.
I have been a participant of the Multiyear Work Program WG (MWP), though I
was not a MAG member. I wish to assure you that none of MWP's
deliberations, nor any of its proposals, expressly or subtly, intended or
conveyed any idea of interfering with the status quo of the role and
position of the DCs and NRIs. On the contrary, the Working Group sought to
engage the DCs and NRIs in the work of the Multi-year work program and
integrate them more into the global IGF.
The MWP initially thought it appropriate to plan for a time span of 2-3
years, but considered suggestions that a longer time horizon for the IGF
could be kept in perspective while deliberating on a work plan for 2-3
years. The Working Group "recognized the importance of engaging broadly
across the full MAG, the IGF community, BPFs, DCs, CENB, and NRIs, in the
development of a multi-year strategic work programme. These engagements are
of primary importance given the global interconnected nature of
international Internet public policy issues, and in full recognition of the
work and expertise that exists across the IGF ecosystem."
The work of the DCs and NRIs were discussed in this context as reflected in
the additional goals for the MWP seen in the document
Points iv, v, and vi, below, all with the overall vision on Point vii.
i) Increased participation from senior policy makers ii) Increased
participation from senior private sector actors iii) More balanced
stakeholder participation iv) Increase collaboration between the NRIs and
the global IGF v) Support NRI efforts to increase collaboration among NRIs
vi) Increase collaboration among DCs, and between the DCs and the global
IGF vii) Work to raise the overall stature of the IGF
MWP, without any opposition from any of the WG members, thought high of the
role of DCs and NRIs and looked for further progress by DCs and NRIs. This
is what that requires to have caught everyone's attention and support, but
instead the diagram was viewed, largely in isolation of the summary text
document, and caused misunderstandings.
The only "approval" that was discussed during the deliberations of this
working group pertained to MAG approval for continuity of the working
group, and NOT in manner manner on inventing approval processes that would
interfere in the status quo of DCs and NRIs.
I hope this clears all misunderstanding.
More information about the Wg-mwp