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

Flávio Rech Wagner flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Mon Jan 14 14:51:26 EST 2019


Dear Lynn

I thank you very much for your effort in drafting this report, which, 
IMO, captures fairly well the contributions of the WG.

I think the report used a very adequate language to express the lack of 
consensus on proposals for the production of more tangible outputs and 
that the discussion of these proposals must be included as a 
recommendation to the incoming MAG.

I agree with you and Ben that we do not have time now for a more 
detailed reporting on the specific concerns about these proposals. 
Because of that, I am also happy to support the report as is. As you 
already mentioned, WG members wishing to express those concerns may do 
so during the next MAG meeting on Wednesday or even during the F2F 
meeting in Geneva.

Best regards

Flávio


> Lynn
>
> Thank you for your efforts in taking into account the various and diverging comments you received on the draft report of the Working Group’s 2018 activities.
>
> I believe you have fairly captured the various positions taken on some of the more contentious areas of work in 2018. In terms of those who expressed concerns about some of the proposals, there could be room in the report to provide a summarized version of those concerns as additional context. However, I am conscious of the limited time available and am happy to support the report as is, which recognizes that there was not full consensus on some of the proposals.
>
> Ben
>
> From: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 1:41 PM
> To: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status Report: (was: Webex meeting invitation & Draft Agenda - October 30th, 2018 1500 -1600 UTC)
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner		

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul      flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Instituto de Informática                       Fone: +55-51-3308 9494
Porto Alegre, Brasil                           http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio

Presidente da Internet Society Brasil
flavio at inf.ufrgs.br, info at isoc.org.br          Fone: +55-51-3308 9494
https://www.isoc.org.br                        Twitter: @ISOCBrasil
https://www.facebook.com/isocbrasil/           https://www.youtube.com/isocbrasil






More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list