[Wg-mwp] [NRIs List] [DC] IGF multi-year work programme

Lynn St.Amour Lynn at Internet-Matters.org
Tue Jun 4 05:43:55 EDT 2019


Hello,

while this WG is not re-charted for 2019 (moved to the full MAG), I do think it is appropriate to follow up on this discussion ahead of this weeks MAG meeting. 

I believe the only open question re the 'draft Programme Framework' is whether the graphic or the language (as Flávio suggested) should be updated.   Thoughts?  Has it been updated?

Lynn

> On Apr 5, 2019, at 4:53 PM, Flávio Rech Wagner <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lynn and colleagues
> 
> Your previous response to Lorena and Luca, as well as Siva's response to Marilyn, should have been sufficient to make it clear that there is a huge misunderstanding in the interpretation of the graphic and that the WG-MWP is not proposing to give to the MAG any oversight over the work of NRIs and DCs.
> 
> I do not agree with Marilyn's suggestion regarding a withdrawal of the graphic. This would be an exaggerated solution to a simple issue.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think we can reduce negative reactions to the graphic (even if caused by a misunderstanding of its meaning) if we agree to replace "MAG approval process" with another language. Another solution would be to complement the graphic with a more detailed explanation of the "MAG approval process", clearly stating that NRIs and DCs are autonomous in their internal works.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Flávio
> 
> 
> 
>> Dear WG members,
>> 
>> would very much like to hear from WG members on the graphic and specifically on Marilyn’s suggestion.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> 
>> Lynn
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [NRIs List] [DC] IGF multi-year work programme
>>> Date: April 5, 2019 at 8:14:05 AM EDT
>>> To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>>> Cc: "Igfregionals at intgovforum.org" <igfregionals at intgovforum.org>, "B at lucabelli.net" <LB at lucabelli.net>, lorena jaume <ljaume at hotmail.com>
>>> 
>>> I appreciate seeing the Chair's response.  It is welcomed.
>>> 
>>> I especially appreciated Luca's and Lorena's earlier posts.
>>> 
>>> I think the concern about the graphic is well placed and well founded.
>>> 
>>> In looking at the graphic which was published by a WG chaired by the IGF Chair, I am disappointed that it found its way into being "reported out".  Images have a way of conveying information that can be "misconveying".
>>> This one seems to be an example. However, it "lives" on, so it continues to misconvey.
>>> 
>>> I appreciate that the Chair of MAG suggests that it is not intended.
>>> 
>>> I find myself very challenged to understand why it has not been withdrawn already, if it has erroneous information.  It doesn't say DRAFT, or to be approved. It is entitled:IGF-WG-MWP PROPOSAL: MULTI YEAR FRAMEWORK FOR IGF.  This label makes it look like it is approved by this WG.
>>> 
>>> ISSUES WITH THE GRAPHIC FROM MY PERSPECTIVE RE THE NRIS:
>>> It clearly shows the DCs and NRIs being "approved" by the MAG approval process at second meeting.
>>> As it presently stands, it seems to convey an approval process by the MAG.
>>> The "shadow" circle also identifies the need for a process for allocation of DC and NRI sessions.
>>> 
>>> It seems to me,  if the MAG and Chair want to show full recognition of the organic nature of the DCs and NRIs. a better choice of language is needed. ... something more like "collaborative efforts with DCs and NRIs".
>>> 
>>> Rather than MAG approval process.. showing the NRIs and DCs being reviewed by the MAG.
>>> 
>>> So,I have a concrete suggestion.  Let's fix this.  The WG and MAG Chair can simply withdraw the graphic. Formally. The link should not continue to have a document that is according to the Chair, not the formal perspective. It needs to say: withdrawn/not approved, or something of that nature so that it is not continuing to be available as what seems to be an approved recommendation from a WG chaired by the MAG chair.
>>> 
>>> I do not speak for any others, but I do understand clearly how powerful a graphic can be in how it conveys information -- or misinformation.
>>> 
>>> Simple solution: noted above.
>>> 
>>> And, again, welcome the Chair's comments. Now time for a solution and continued acceptance of the organic and dynamic nature of the NRIs -- recognizing the presence is indeed one of the best outcomes of WSIS.
>>> 
>>> Marilyn Cade
>>> From: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com <mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com>>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 1:07 AM
>>> To: Lynn St.Amour
>>> Cc: Igfregionals at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfregionals at intgovforum.org>; B at lucabelli.net <mailto:B at lucabelli.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [NRIs List] [DC] IGF multi-year work programme
>>>  Thanks for  the clarification Lynn,
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> On 4/4/19, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org <mailto:Lynn at internet-matters.org>> wrote:
>>>> Dear Lorena, Luca,
>>>> 
>>>> there is a serious misunderstanding here.   The MAG is NOT “recommending the
>>>> MAG have oversight over the work of the NRIs and the DCs”,  nor was the
>>>> Working Group: Multiyear Strategic Work Plan recommending this!   Nor is
>>>> there a discussion on the MAG re “the MAG having oversight over the NRIs”.
>>>> 
>>>> The MAG and the WG-MWP fully respect the roles and the autonomy of the NRIs
>>>> and DCs, and I believe have been working diligently to support the NRIs and
>>>> DCs - all in our respective capacities and roles.
>>>> 
>>>> As an aid for the community and the MAG, the WG and the Secretariat compiled
>>>> a table several years ago (a "Component document" that included all the
>>>> component pieces of the IGF ecosystem with all their reference documents
>>>> included).  That can be found here:
>>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intgovforum.org%2Fmultilingual%2Findex.php%3Fq%3Dfiledepot_download%2F6212%2F1241&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0a869ab461884879448e08d6b984b1da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636900376904293881&sdata=hSbHDSaQ5%2FiCvWJb89Wy8QH2lRI04ZXX%2Bqvig%2BJTlbw%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intgovforum.org%2Fmultilingual%2Findex.php%3Fq%3Dfiledepot_download%2F6212%2F1241&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0a869ab461884879448e08d6b984b1da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636900376904293881&sdata=hSbHDSaQ5%2FiCvWJb89Wy8QH2lRI04ZXX%2Bqvig%2BJTlbw%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>   Please note: this is the reference document, not the graphic you mention
>>>> below.
>>>> 
>>>> As the Chair of that WG last year, I will forward this note to the WG asking
>>>> for further comments/clarifications.   Just FYI: the WG did not request to
>>>> be rechartered for 2019.
>>>> 
>>>> Hope this helps clear up the misunderstanding.  If not, please let us know.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We are all working towards the same objective, and a dialogue is much more
>>>> productive for all.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Lynn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 3, 2019, at 6:45 PM, lorena jaume <ljaume at hotmail.com <mailto:ljaume at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> as we discussed in our last call, a working group within the MAG is
>>>>> recommending the MAG to have oversight over the work of the NRIs and the
>>>>> DCs. This would mean that the NRI network would not be autonomous anymore
>>>>> and that our collaborative with the secretariat would not be anymore.
>>>>> Afaik this is a decision that procedurally cannot be taken by the MAG,
>>>>> since they don't have the competence. So even though the MAG wants to
>>>>> discuss the idea of having oversight over the NRIs does not mean that they
>>>>> can have oversight. I am forwarding you an email (see below) from the
>>>>> mailinglist of the Dynamic Coalitions. Luca Belli is suggesting to send a
>>>>> statement to the MAG. From our last call I take that the majority in the
>>>>> call had a similar position. Would a joint statement make sense?
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Lorena
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 03.04.19, 19:13 schrieb "LB at lucabelli.net <mailto:LB at lucabelli.net>" <LB at lucabelli.net <mailto:LB at lucabelli.net>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Dear Eleonora and all,
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Many thanks for sharing these documents.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     I am baffled by the MAG's vision of the IGF "Ecosystem Overview"
>>>>> provided in the second document you shared
>>>>>     https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intgovforum.org%2Fmultilingual%2Ffiledepot_download%2F5075%2F1259&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0a869ab461884879448e08d6b984b1da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636900376904293881&sdata=khIMQenaSO%2FqMcxkHMJY6GwfodcsVsPQykfYE18A6dw%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intgovforum.org%2Fmultilingual%2Ffiledepot_download%2F5075%2F1259&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0a869ab461884879448e08d6b984b1da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636900376904293881&sdata=khIMQenaSO%2FqMcxkHMJY6GwfodcsVsPQykfYE18A6dw%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>> (*Working Group presentation)
>>>>> 
>>>>>     At page 1, the graphic proposed by the MAG explicitly mentions "MAG
>>>>> approval" i.e. MAG control over DCs and NRIs work, which of course would
>>>>> be a self-attribution of non-existing MAG powers concerning what can be
>>>>> done by DCs and NRIs.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Needless to remind that the MAG is a programme committee that has all
>>>>> the rights to assess that formal requirements are respected by DCs (as
>>>>> they are doing when they ask us to submit session request via specific
>>>>> forms) and NRIs but has NO right at all to approve the type or content of
>>>>> the work DCs and NRIs decide to do.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     And, of course, needless to say that this continuous underhand
>>>>> attempts from the MAG to assert control over DCs and NRIs are not really
>>>>> the best possible strategy to restore trust between us….
>>>>> 
>>>>>     I think both DCs and NRIs should carefully check these sort of sneaky
>>>>> attempts to control WHAT we do and STRONGLY oppose it.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     I am writing in the hope we jointly agree to send a shared and robust
>>>>> message opposing this very peculiar MAG “overview”
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Best
>>>>>     Luca
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>    Luca Belli, PhD
>>>>>    Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
>>>>> School
>>>>>    Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé,
>>>>> Université Paris 2
>>>>> 
>>>>>    https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.internet-governance.fgv.br&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0a869ab461884879448e08d6b984b1da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636900376904293881&sdata=p8O7ZEOoKX26cxnkyFv2oHhoWsiMoLwRQ4VMvxW9IV0%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.internet-governance.fgv.br&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0a869ab461884879448e08d6b984b1da%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636900376904293881&sdata=p8O7ZEOoKX26cxnkyFv2oHhoWsiMoLwRQ4VMvxW9IV0%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>    @1lucabelli
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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