[Wg-mwp] WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status Report: (was: Webex meeting invitation & Draft Agenda - October 30th, 2018 1500 -1600 UTC)

Pradeep Balachandran pbn.tvm at gmail.com
Mon Jan 14 13:07:23 EST 2019


Dear Lynn,
                   Based on your note - " *WRT "number of members”, not
sure how to capture this fairly as we focus on consensus (and not ‘voting’)
- suggestions welcome.* ", here is a point to share:

One may define the '*number of members*' as a balanced set, representing
all the 4 major stakeholder groups(Civil Soc., Technical, etc.)  . Also
from the perspective of 'consensus' , total strength or number (absolute
value) may not matter much, but proportion of participating groups may be
more significant. Also this so called number need not bear any relationship
with the "Quorum" of the WG meetings.

Best regards,
Pradeep Balachandran


On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:57 PM Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
wrote:

> Dear Jutta, Ben, all,
>
> Thank you.  I tried to address the reasons why we were not able to reach
> consensus in the paragraphs 2 and 3 under Recommendations (below for ease).
>
> 2)     Throughout this process, there has been a recurring issue with
> respect to how far to go with producing more tangible outputs.  Some
> members believe there is support in the Tunis Agenda for “recommendations”,
> perhaps achieved through various ‘deliberative democratic methodologies
> that do not require text negotiations or voting, while still delivering
> outputs’.  It was repeatedly stated that all members of the WG intended to
> fully support the Tunis Agenda (and did not support voting or steps to
> become a forum for negotiations).  Specifically, several members (from
> different stakeholder groups) expressed the hope that the MAG will support
> the idea of new modalities of outputs / recommendations, perhaps via a
> small number of pilots.
>
> 3)      Late in the year, some members of the WG proposed the MAG explore
> the possibility of using a professionally facilitated process in 2019 and
> discussed an offer from a company called Synmind to provide an
> online/offline facilitated process for the IGF community. There was no
> consensus on proceeding and some members recognized this was a
> discussion/decision for the incoming MAG.
>
> I believe paragraph 2) above captures the main point of disagreement.
> Perhaps I could move this text up in the document, would that help?  We are
> meant to review this status report on Wednesday’s MAG call. And, of course
> WG members can provide additional comments during the status report itself.
>
> The statements declaring we were not able to reach consensus were in the
> report from late last year and there were no additional explanations
> requested then.    If we include objections, I feel we need to also include
> reasons supporting the pilots and we are out of time for this report.  It
> could serve as the basis for the kick-off discussion with the MAG during
> our face-2-face.
>
> Additional comments below.
>
> > On Jan 14, 2019, at 12:50 AM, Jutta Croll <jcroll at digitale-chancen.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Lynn,
> >
> > thanks a lot for all the efforts put into the report. I do understand
> the difficulty to achieve a consensual outcome, nonetheless I am afraid the
> paragraphs referring to the fact that there was no consensus on the reports
> ‘Strengthened cooperation within the context of the IGF 2019’ and
> ‘Methodologies for the Development of Written IGF Outputs’ and the Synmind
> proposal will leave new MAG members puzzled. If in any case we are able to
> phrase shortly the objections as well as the supportive aspects to the
> reports and the proposal this could provide the new MAG with a more
> substantial approach to their deliberations.
>
> Please see above.
>
> > With regard to the last paragraph of the report as quoted below, I do
> think we need at least explain these „several reasons“ and what „a number
> of members“ does mean.
>
> Please see above, for Synmind, time and resources were also a factor, and
> I could include this.
>
> > For several reasons there was no WG consensus possible on these pilots
> ("Strengthened cooperation within the context of the IGF 2019",
> "Methodologies for the Development of Written IGF Outputs" nor on the
> Synmind facilitated process), but a number of members had significant
> interest and a strong desire that the incoming MAG be aware of these
> proposals as they plan for IGF 2019”.
>
> WRT "number of members”, not sure how to capture this fairly as we focus
> on consensus (and not ‘voting’) - suggestions welcome.
>
> Of the active members, individual members from 3 SH groups were very
> supportive of doing more to produce more tangible outputs and showed
> significant interest in these *possible* pilots and more importantly that
> the discussion be continued this coming year with the new MAG.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Lynn
>
> > Kind regards
> > Jutta
> >
> >
> > Am 11.01.2019 um 22:41 schrieb Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org
> <mailto:Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>>:
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > first, please accept my sincere apologies for the length of time it has
> taken for me to get back to this.  On a positive note, I have nearly
> competed the last 2 meeting summaries for the WG-MWP and these will be sent
> soon.
> >
> > We were very close to finalizing the report and the comments received on
> the last report from Gonzalo, Flavio, Jeremy, Timea, Wout, Titti, etc.
> have all been incorporated. I started with a clean document, and the edits
> are shown in red for ease.  I incorporated to a great extent direct
> language from those individuals listed above in order to help ensure
> support and speed the reviews of the WG.
> >
> > We will take a reading on Monday on whether this is sent to the MAG as
> ‘a report from the WG' or with reservations.  Please indicate in your
> response whether you support the report as is.  If you have reservations,
> please note them and they will be noted in the report to the MAG.
> >
> > Also, please note, as MAG members and community members we all act in an
> individual capacity, as the MAG Terms of Reference state.  Just as the IGF
> itself is not meant to be a negotiating body amongst stakeholders nor is
> the MAG or its WGs.
> >
> > Best regards and thank you for all your efforts over the past year.
> >
> > Lynn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:02 PM, Lynn St.Amour <lynn at internet-matters.org
> <mailto:lynn at internet-matters.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >> I have read through all the comments carefully and hopefully have found
> an acceptable way forward.  Apologies for the delay in turning this around,
> I have had to start and stop it several times.
> >>
> >> First,  thank you to everyone for the careful reviews and all the
> efforts over the past 5 or so months.   I began with the version submitted
> by Timea and incorporated comments and suggestions from all other
> submissions.
> >>
> >> I think there is a lot of similarity (or could be) between the major
> policy project - CENB and what some members were looking for wrt new
> multiyear strategic topic(s).  I think it is a good time for the MAG to
> review how well our collective efforts have worked with the major policy
> project as it has been 4 years, and  improvements are likely needed.  Some
> of the suggestions from WG members may be appropriate for future major
> policy projects.
> >>
> >> With respect to the two pilots that were reviewed in the WG - I believe
> those options are still open and a number of WG members want to continue
> exploring them.  They address modalities of working, of outreach and also
> exploring new modalities of outputs/recommendations.   The first step could
> be to get agreement on a topic or two and then determine how/if it might
> benefit from exploring these modalities.    One option is that we explore
> whether a new major policy initiative could be improved by following some
> of the suggestions in those pilots.   In any case, given there was interest
> in these ideas from a number of WG members, I attempted to capture the
> current state in the following bullet under Next Steps:   "The reports
> ‘Strengthened cooperation within the context of the IGF 2019’ and
> “Methodologies for the Development of Written IGF Outputs” provide
> additional ideas and may be helpful to the MAG in their deliberations.”
> I also added (last paragraph):  "There was no WG consensus possible on
> these pilots this year (for several reasons), but there was significant
> interest on the part of a number of members and hence should be included in
> this status report."
> >>
> >> One of the things we consistently hear is that a longer horizon wrt the
> topics the IGF will focus on would be helpful in outreach efforts and in
> bringing in additional donors.   We have also heard that BPFs would benefit
> from a multi-year chartering as there would be no downtime between outgoing
> and Incoming MAG decisions, and would result in a more efficient start-up.
> A multi-year chartering would also provide the ability (and time) to reach
> out to other collaborators.  To that end, I added one bullet under Next
> Steps -- for the WGs consideration… "4) Review the possibility of adopting
> multi-year intersessional activities for some BPFs and/or a major policy
> initiative.”  If WG members prefer to leave that out - no problem, we can
> pick it up with the MAG in the future.
> >>
> >> Just FYI, I am undecided as to whether or not I think the WG should
> continue, but this is a decision for the incoming MAG anyway.   This work
> is important enough and broad enough that it should be with the whole MAG
> (and this year, we expect to have more time to get through all that needs
> to be done).
> >>
> >> A few additional comments:
> >>
> >> Pradeep, you suggested capturing any “resolutions” made by the WG and
> calling them out separately.  I think this is a great idea going forward
> but as we did not declare them as such at the time, I do not feel we can
> call them out here.  We do try and indicate where the WG was in agreement.
> >>
> >> Also, you suggested including any challenges foreseen for this WG as
> part of the report to the MAG, and this is another good idea.  I believe
> some of this was done in some of the suggestions and extending this as part
> of any transition discussion between the incoming and outgoing MAG would be
> a good start.
> >>
> >> I made a few comments in response to other comments but the editing was
> acting up on me so they all say Author.  I indicated my comments by adding
> “Lynn:” at the beginning of them.
> >>
> >> Hope this report meets with your approval.  if we can get agreement in
> time we can report it as such on the MAG call this week, but I appreciate
> that may be difficult, in which case we will report it as a work in process.
> >>
> >> Note: need final copies of the reports ‘Strengthened cooperation within
> the context of the IGF 2019’ and “Methodologies for the Development of
> Written IGF Outputs” to include as an Annex and/or links.  Want to make
> sure I have the latest versions.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Lynn
> >> <PrivateSectorComm_WG-MWP 2018 - WORKING DRAFT Status Doc_311018
> LSA.docx>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 29, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Lynn St.Amour <lynn at internet-matters.org
> <mailto:lynn at internet-matters.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ben, all,
> >>>
> >>> a small group of WG members jumped in to help begin drafting a status
> report - it is still rough; and speaking for myself, I just ran out of
> cycles to help move it forward. I am attaching it here.
> >>>
> >>> We would like the WG members to review the document, and help refine
> it.  Our goal is to have a status report that we could hand off to the
> incoming MAG/MAG Chair, preferably no later than 1 week from today.
> >>>
> >>> If necessary, we can identify the areas where there is agreement and
> areas where there are differing opinions - but we should capture the work
> and status.
> >>>
> >>> Appreciate anything WG members can contribute.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Lynn
> >>>
> >>> <WG-MWP 2018 - WORKING DRAFT Status Doc.docx>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 29, 2018, at 12:04 PM, Ben Wallis (CELA) <
> bewallis at microsoft.com<mailto:bewallis at microsoft.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Lynn
> >>>>
> >>>> During the last call, you mentioned some kind of Summary Paper
> covering the various outputs of this year, which I've been looking forward
> to review. Maybe that is referred to in item 3 below?
> >>>>
> >>>> Will that be circulated ahead of tomorrow's call?
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Ben
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org<mailto:
> Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:00 AM
> >>>> To: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org<mailto:wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>>
> >>>> Subject: [Wg-mwp] WG-MWP: Webex meeting invitation & Draft Agenda -
> October 30th, 2018 1500 -1600 UTC
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear WG members,
> >>>>
> >>>> please find below the log-in details for our next call - no
> registration required.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please see below the draft agenda - all comments/suggestions welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Siva, is there anything you would like to add to the agenda?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Lynn
> >>>>
> >>>> -----------------
> >>>> DRAFT AGENDA:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 - Intro/Logistics/Admin
> >>>>
> >>>> 2 - Status of the following proposals:
> >>>>
> >>>> a)  “IGF Programme Framework”
> >>>> b)  Option Paper on Methodologies for the Development of Written IGF
> Outputs
> >>>> c)  Strengthening Cooperation within the Context of the IGF: A
> Roadmap for 2018
> >>>>
> >>>> 3 -  Review status of concrete proposal for the development of a
> multi-year strategic work programme
> >>>>
> >>>> 4 -  Update on WG-Improvements (WG-IMP) as their work relates to this
> WG
> >>>>
> >>>> 5 - Next steps/future agenda items
> >>>>
> >>>> 6 - AOB
> >>>>
> >>>> -----------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> WG-MWP 2018
> >>>> Tuesday, October 30, 2018
> >>>> 3:00 pm  |  Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT)  |  1 hr Meeting number
> (access code): 841 545 027
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Add to Calendar <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.webex.com%2Fintgovforum%2Fj.php%3FMTID%3Dm62b6ef28964f91427b2b06f4c7a10a19&data=02%7C01%7Cbewallis%40microsoft.com%7Cc0ce0c2e4f3d4aa1521c08d63daf5291%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636764220546393583&sdata=JQz3%2BdqmC9wyFn0TrbmXIlOlTvakMLKjCf2jh8xXfqc%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >>>> When it's time, join the meeting <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.webex.com%2Fintgovforum%2Fj.php%3FMTID%3Dm89fddc13474755fde69f5d00ebd20b6d&data=02%7C01%7Cbewallis%40microsoft.com%7Cc0ce0c2e4f3d4aa1521c08d63daf5291%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636764220546393583&sdata=9CfEpXpYXNJs95sHJPWozSgSG2VEPr5CzkUV%2BB7f4tE%3D&reserved=0
> >.
> >>>>
> >>>> Join by phone
> >>>> +44-203-478-5289 <tel:+44-203-478-5289,,*01*841545027%23%23*01*>
> Call-in
> >>>> +toll number (UK)
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't join the meeting? <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcollaborationhelp.cisco.com%2Farticle%2FWBX000029055&data=02%7C01%7Cbewallis%40microsoft.com%7Cc0ce0c2e4f3d4aa1521c08d63daf5291%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636764220546393583&sdata=Z5%2BBwMos%2Bx1%2FJa3aqEGmNHT56rNohx0sSocjdi477Dc%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this Webex service allows audio
> and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be
> discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically
> consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded,
> discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wg-mwp mailing list
> >>>> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org<mailto:Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
> >>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fintgovforum.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwg-mwp_intgovforum.org&data=02%7C01%7Cbewallis%40microsoft.com%7Cc0ce0c2e4f3d4aa1521c08d63daf5291%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636764220546393583&sdata=06wuKYhYJy9gyYrqWK4qRDSDMyq0K%2FehpHa2rY6s%2BmQ%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wg-mwp mailing list
> >>>> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 2018 - Status Report.docx>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list