[Wgwseval] [Security-safety] [Datagovernance] [Inclusion] Narratives and sub-themes

Tue Feb 26 11:15:31 EST 2019

Thank you Jutta,

apologies for any confusion.  My note below was in reference to Sylvia’s comments on the Narratives but I just sent a note to the MAG where I think I captured the bulk of her comments.

I also mentioned the fact that you would be sending the Proposal form with some questions for MAG deliberation.

Great work everyone!

Lynn

> On Feb 26, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Jutta Croll <jcroll at digitale-chancen.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lynn,
> 
> we are just in the process of incorporating comments from the call and received afterwards into one consolidated version for MAG review, that version shall be send out in due time before tomorrow's call.
> 
> Kind regards
> Jutta
> **********************************
> Jutta Croll M. A.
> Stiftung Digitale Chancen
> - Projektleitung Kinderschutz und Kinderrechte in der digitalen Welt - 
> - Vorsitzende des Vorstands / Chairwoman of the board - 
> Chausseestr. 15 
> D-10115 Berlin
> Germany
> 
> Skype: jcrollSDC
> 
> Tel.: ++ 49(0)30-43727730
> Mobil: ++ 49(0)163-5493-773
> E-Mail: jcroll at digitale-chancen.de
> URL: www.digitale-chancen.de
> 
> English Version: 
> http://www.digitale-chancen.de/index.cfm/lang.2
> **********************************
> 
> 
>> Am 26.02.2019 um 17:00 schrieb Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>:
>> 
>> Thank you Sylvia,
>> 
>> would you be able to send this or a version of this to the MAG as you will not be on the call tomorrow?  If not, I will bring your points forward to the MAG.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Lynn
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:12 PM, Sylvia Cadena <sylvia at apnic.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Lynn, and thanks to everyone that has worked on the narratives. 
>>> 
>>> I have been following the discussions trying to see how it will fit with the work of the WG on evaluation and how that will translate into the application form. It will be greatly appreciated if the Secretariat can help to get the documents in the order of the different versions that were developed available on a folder that the MAG can use to refer to? With the time zone differences and after experiencing some odd behaviours from the mailing list, it is a bit hard to understand the progression on the documents. 
>>> 
>>> Jutta, Susan and I have been working on a draft application form that will be shared ahead of the WGWSEVAL call later tonight, to try to see how all of these fits together. I hope we will be able to share this with the full MAG list after, so that the conversation about the narratives and their integration into the application process can be discussed by the MAG. We have taken the approach of including the narrative, subtheme, SDG and policy question approach, on the flow of questions. 
>>> 
>>> I think that the MAG should have a go at reviewing how the text of the 3 narratives flows when looking at them together, as well as the policy questions to be included as examples, as they need editing for consistency of language, spelling consistency and also clarity. Quite a few of the questions included as policy questions need refining to be presented in a consistent way. I think the framing of the policy questions should be done in a neutral way, so it allow for different answers/views/proposals. I believe that is is very important that the policy questions do not include statements that indicate a preconception about what the answer should be. The question should not indicate what answer are we looking for. I also want to point out that some of the expected outcomes listed are more high level development impact statements, more appropriate to large deployment/implementation processes, rather than the outcomes to be expected after discussions and dialogue. If worded that way, they will set unrealistic expectations. 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Sylvia
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia at apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation
>>> ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia | 
>>> 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD,  4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 |  Fax: +61 7  3858 3199
>>> * Love trees. Print only if necessary.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 26/2/19, 5:05 am, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   Dear colleagues,
>>> 
>>>   after reviewing this thread (and all the positive support to Susan’s suggestion that we feature only the narrative and a handful of illustrative policy questions), and after further discussion with the secretariat, we believe there is broad support for the following:
>>> 
>>>   - follow the short version sent in by the WG for the Narrative on Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience (sent by Jutta Croll on Feb. 22, 2019).  This means we would include the Sub-theme and Illustrative policy questions only.   And, as many believe the SDGs are important to track as well, we are proposing that we include a final sentence in the Narrative that simply lists all the SDGs identified by the WGs (further simplifying the format).   We understand there is an open discussion in the 'WG on WS Evaluation’ re WS submissions identifying the SDGs each WS supports, and this seems the most useful.
>>> 
>>>   Further, from the comments received, there is still some concern re the number of Illustrative policy questions (by some members of these WGs, myself and the secretariat) — and some suggestions that we try to reduce the number of them or as Ben has suggested formulate the questions such that we bring in different perspectives on the same topic.  We would like to hear from you on this.
>>> 
>>>   In the meantime, given the expected release dates, the secretariat is going to format all three Themes to mirror the short version for the Narrative on Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience and they plan to send this to the MAG Tuesday AM.  We will not reduce the number of policy questions, but this will be discussed on the MAG call.
>>> 
>>>   Again, we believe there is support for this given the various mail threads, but if anyone has a strong objection please let us know, and do feel free to share them on the MAG call/list as well.  
>>> 
>>>   Best,
>>>   Lynn
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 21, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Chalmers, Susan <schalmers at ntia.doc.gov> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> This has been a very useful discussion on approach, against a backdrop of focused work by MAG members. I weighed in briefly yesterday, but having spent some time this morning considering what the ideal “proposer experience” would be, I’d like to share a few suggestions and thoughts.
>>>> 
>>>> In essence, the MAG has already determined three priority topics: inclusion, data governance, and security & safety. Putting aside the ‘other’ category for the moment, anyone who proposes a workshop will have to pick one of these three themes, the narrative for which will appear on the screen, ideally with a handful of illustrative policy questions. Including all of the priority topics and questions that currently exist would be overwhelming not only for the proposer, but for the MAG as well; including prioritized topics implicates the evaluation criteria.  What if a high quality workshop fits well under the Inclusion theme narrative, but is not related to a priority topic?  Does that mean that the proposal should be rejected?
>>>> 
>>>> For these reasons, I would suggest that we feature only the narrative and a handful of illustrative policy questions for the proposer and support Ben’s suggestion to narrow down the policy questions to ensure that different perspectives are able to come together to discuss the same broad topic. I have no strong opinion on whether we further narrow down the topics per sub-theme.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Susan
>>>> 
>>>> Susan Elizabeth Chalmers
>>>> Internet Policy Specialist
>>>> Office of International Affairs
>>>> National Telecommunications and Information Administration
>>>> U.S. Department of Commerce
>>>> 202.482.6789
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Veni Markovski <veni.markovski at icann.org> 
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:22 AM
>>>> To: Ben Wallis (CELA) <bewallis at microsoft.com>; Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>; Paul Rowney <prowney at outlook.com>
>>>> Cc: "Dr. Daniela Brönstrup" <daniela.broenstrup at bmwi.bund.de>; datagovernance at intgovforum.org; security-safety at intgovforum.org; inclusion at intgovforum.org; Rudolf.Gridl at bmwi.bund.de; Anja Gengo <anja.gengo at un.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Security-safety] [Datagovernance] [Inclusion] Narratives and sub-themes
>>>> 
>>>> +1 on Ben’s questions and Lynn’s point.
>>>> 
>>>> v/
>>>> 
>>>> From: Ben Wallis (CELA) <bewallis at microsoft.com> 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 14:51
>>>> To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>; Paul Rowney <prowney at outlook.com>
>>>> Cc: "Dr. Daniela Brönstrup" <daniela.broenstrup at bmwi.bund.de>; datagovernance at intgovforum.org; security-safety at intgovforum.org;inclusion at intgovforum.org; Rudolf.Gridl at bmwi.bund.de; Anja Gengo <anja.gengo at un.org>
>>>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Security-safety] [Datagovernance] [Inclusion] Narratives and sub-themes
>>>> 
>>>> Hi everyone
>>>> 
>>>> First, an observation / question for clarification: 
>>>> There’s one thing I’m not clear about with the “priority topics”. I had imagined that these would be the *only* topics on which we would accept workshop proposals (and with, as Chengetai described it, “an ‘other’ track for topics of import that do not necessarily fall into one of the three defined tracks if they are substantive enough. Some of the slots in the ‘other’ track will be left unfilled until a month or so before the meeting to catch any late-breaking issue that may come up…”). 
>>>> 
>>>> The policy questions then provide a bit more information about the topic, while also guiding workshop proponents to think in terms of policy questions.
>>>> 
>>>> In short, they wouldn’t be priority topics, they would be the only topics. And, as an exhaustive list of topics (even if there are 30 of them), we would already be moving towards a more focused and limited IGF agenda than the last couple of years, with 8 themes and about 55 tags. 
>>>> 
>>>> But I guess I called this a question for clarification because I’m not clear exactly what the envisaged role of the topics and policy questions is – e.g. whether the list of topics is an exhaustive list of the only topics workshops can be proposed on, or whether it is a list of topics which the MAG believes are the most interesting / relevant and suggest workshop proposals focus on, but without restricting proposals on other topics.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Then, a proposed adjustment:
>>>> I accept Lynn’s point that 30 is still a lot of topics, and I have a suggestion for how we might be able to further pare down the list.
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder whether the number of topics / policy questions can be narrowed down if we merge topics in ways that bring in different perspectives on the same broad topic, e.g. business and civil society perspectives or North and South.
>>>> 
>>>> I think that could be helpful in steering away from a situation where workshop proponents look at a topic from a particular perspective which doesn’t draw in alternative viewpoints, and encourages workshop proponents to look beyond what might be a policy comfort zone to craft real dialogue on multipolar topics. I think that is one of the desired aims of the IGF – a dialogue which enables the exchange of perspectives and experiences. Of course, there’s also a challenge for how to find ways to identify and value that in the workshop evaluation process, but that can be taken up by the Working Group on Workshop Evaluation.
>>>> 
>>>> We have a pretty mature document on data governance ahead of Friday’s deadline, but I’ll follow this thread and be ready to try and draw up a second, pared-down version over the next day or two if that helps.
>>>> (To note that I’ll be on leave next Tuesday to Friday, so will miss the discussions and decisions taken next week, but I’m keen to do what I can to help between now and Monday evening)
>>>> 
>>>> Ben
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: June Parris <parrisjune51 at gmail.com> 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:37 AM
>>>> To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>>>> Cc: "Dr. Daniela Brönstrup" <daniela.broenstrup at bmwi.bund.de>; security-safety at intgovforum.org; datagovernance at intgovforum.org;inclusion at intgovforum.org; Rudolf.Gridl at bmwi.bund.de; Anja Gengo <anja.gengo at un.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Inclusion] [Datagovernance] Narratives and sub-themes
>>>> 
>>>> Agree to de-emphasising priority areas in the template is an agreeable solution.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> June Parris
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org> 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:10 AM
>>>> To: Paul Rowney <prowney at outlook.com>
>>>> Cc: "Dr. Daniela Brönstrup" <daniela.broenstrup at bmwi.bund.de>; datagovernance at intgovforum.org; security-safety at intgovforum.org;inclusion at intgovforum.org; Rudolf.Gridl at bmwi.bund.de; Anja Gengo <anja.gengo at un.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Datagovernance] [Inclusion] Narratives and sub-themes
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Paul,
>>>> 
>>>> completely agree with reducing redundant workshops.
>>>> 
>>>> Still not sure I can see how 30ish “priority areas” meets the agreed objective of a more focused cohesive programme.  More importantly maybe, I am not sure how we get the MAG in the WS Review process to get to a more focused cohesive programme (including focusing on the more consequential areas) if we start from 30 "priority areas”.   This is something we need the WG - WS Eval to take a look at.
>>>> 
>>>> And, I am not sure what you meant by your last sentence "However, I would support refining the documents to better suit the required outcomes."  Could you expand on what you are thinking?   We may not be that far apart, if we agree on de-emphasizing “priority areas” in the template; that is what I was trying to do with the first option.   
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Paul, and look forward to hearing from others.
>>>> 
>>>> Lynn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 12:29 AM, Paul Rowney <prowney at outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Lynn, I see it a little differently, I feel that one challenge we have is multiple workshops that talk about the same thing  By identifying the priority areas we are building flow into the process where we can guide submitter to better focus on one or more of the priority areas (or other relevant areas that we have missed), and for the MAG to prioritise the WS that complement each other to tell the complete story.  30 priority areas could lead to 30 WS that tackle 30 specific but complementary IG issues.  However, I would support refining the documents to better suit the required outcomes.  
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org> 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2019 23:54
>>>> To: inclusion at intgovforum.org; datagovernance at intgovforum.org; security-safety at intgovforum.org
>>>> Cc: Rudolf.Gridl at bmwi.bund.de; "Dr. Daniela Brönstrup" <daniela.broenstrup at bmwi.bund.de>; Anja Gengo <anja.gengo at un.org>
>>>> Subject: [Inclusion] Narratives and sub-themes
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> first, a very big thank you for all the excellent work that has gone into these narratives.  They are looking very good.
>>>> 
>>>> In discussions with the secretariat, we feel that the large number of “priority areas” is not really conducive to a more focused or cohesive agenda.   Nor is it prioritizing the most consequential topics.  In fact, if we look across the three working groups, there are now more priority topics than there were sub themes/tracks in the past few years (we are likely approaching nearly 30 priority areas across the 3 major themes).   In addition, the term “priority areas” could lead WS submitters to think all these areas would be covered in the final program. 
>>>> 
>>>> Some possible ways to address this (just thinking off the top of my head, so jump in):
>>>> 
>>>> 1 - Do away with the separate column titled  “priority areas” and simply add headings to the "Illustrative policy questions” column - keeping all the policy questions intact and grouped only under the two sub-themes.  Would be more clear, and less open to misunderstanding.  
>>>> 
>>>> 2 - If we feel we should keep the column “priority areas” can we change it to something like "possible programme areas” or "possible topic areas"?   This would help make it clear that the IGF 2019 programme is intended to be more focused/cohesive and that we will be looking to address the more consequential areas as a priority and not cover every priority area (again, the current trajectory has us approaching 30 priority areas across all three themes).  In any case, we need to be clear on this last point in all messaging at the time of the WS Call in order not to confuse/disappoint submitters.  If we go this route, I believe it is important that we get to 2 (3 max) "possible programme/topic areas” under each of the two sub-themes (not the 4 or 5 we have at the moment).
>>>> 
>>>> If we choose the 2nd option above, could we consolidate some of the "possible programme areas” (leaving the policy questions intact).  For example, we could consolidate: 'Availability and Affordability’, or 'Affordability and Infrastructure, or maybe 'Availability, Affordability and Infrastructure’.
>>>> 
>>>> Some additional points from the secretariat, perhaps consider consolidating ‘Consumer Safety’ in the Security/Safety group; and “Relevance’ is quite broad and may be covered in the other Major themes as well.  I think it is very important that we minimize any overlap/possible points of confusion between major themes, that will only make it more difficult for submitters - and we should review all three submissions with this in mind.
>>>> 
>>>> We are very much interested in your thoughts,  I know we were all very committed to improving the IGF programme and this is contributed in that vein.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Lynn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Inclusion mailing list
>>>> Inclusion at intgovforum.org
>>>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/inclusion_intgovforum.org [intgovforum.org]
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   Security-safety mailing list
>>>   Security-safety at intgovforum.org
>>>   To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/security-safety_intgovforum.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> wgwseval mailing list
>> wgwseval at intgovforum.org
>> To unsubscribe and other options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wgwseval_intgovforum.org
> 