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

sivasubramanian muthusamy 6.internet at gmail.com
Tue Jun 4 10:42:43 EDT 2019


Dear Lynn,

Attaching a diagram which might, with fewer errors,  approximately reflect
the IGF process

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
twitter.com/shivaindia


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:14 PM Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF Process diagram (1).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 27141 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20190604/14746378/attachment-0001.pdf>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list