From wjdrake at gmail.com  Tue Jul  8 10:34:52 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:34:52 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?=5BIGFmaglist=5D_Next_Steps=3A_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?Way_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/R?=
 =?windows-1252?q?ole_of_IGF_=96_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpKk3E1d=RbVFV9Kn_05iWhxv89UFCPD0WesxWPg6jyS4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANRKRpJaeu2es_hGk-0WsQ83e3YyfmyoG4BnMNipy4ym4XS7XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY406-EAS199068C85170A791CDC6D7D3510@phx.gbl>
	<CANRKRp+dpkoavk16JKkdUfT_QAS9NcjKT3p5B=wUgMdbC0TnaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8B3F7D33-971E-4694-95AA-7D6F95D715AA@gmail.com>
	<CANRKRpKk3E1d=RbVFV9Kn_05iWhxv89UFCPD0WesxWPg6jyS4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2AB7998E-B3D5-445D-9E4B-3E4498BA671B@gmail.com>

Hi

So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group list were 16 April.  Further to the conversations on the main MAG list, it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.  

We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps, the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the IGF can  strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less inclusive organizations and alliances). 

So some questions:

1.  Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?.  Would it not make sense to tweak this rather long title?  The first half would seem fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?  Thoughts?

2.  The session description that would appear in the program would need to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution.  I?m not clear which of the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description, so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.

3.  Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the following:

>> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>
>>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>> 1.    IGF- Janis Karklins
>>> 2.    ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>> 3.    ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>> 4.    ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>> 5.    IETF-Jari Arkko
>>> 6.    W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>> 7.    Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>
>>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>> 1.    Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>> 2.    Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/   Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>> 3.    Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>> 4.    Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>> 5.    Government: 2-3  (from developing country  and another from the developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and  Ed Vaizy  (The Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil. Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa might work here.)

I have a couple concerns here.  First, I hope we are not falling back into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven time and again for a decade not to work well.  If we do serial talking head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and there?s no time for audience interaction.  If we do a more moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused.  I?ve co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling with a big group commenting in different directions.

Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been others.  In previous years this was handled in a different, collectively agreed manner.  

Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and who has accepted?  And can we please hold off on going further down that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board?  There are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got here.  Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.

Thanks,

Bill


***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140708/1bf5d6be/attachment.htm>

From NDAGOSTINO at unog.ch  Thu Jul 10 04:31:34 2014
From: NDAGOSTINO at unog.ch (Nicolas DAGOSTINO)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:31:34 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Test Email - Please Ignore
Message-ID: <OF0C7B9F58.B131A3EE-ONC1257D11.002ECEB5-C1257D11.002ED6A8@unog.un.org>

Test Email - Please Ignore
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140710/00a0233a/attachment.htm>

From STELEANU at unog.ch  Thu Jul 10 05:50:38 2014
From: STELEANU at unog.ch (Sorina TELEANU)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:50:38 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] =?utf-8?q?__Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_?=
 =?utf-8?q?of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=E2=80=93_=28React?=
 =?utf-8?q?ion_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
Message-ID: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>

Dear all,

We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get 
through before.

Best regards,

Sorina Teleanu
IGF Secretariat

Begin forwarded message:

From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward 
Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to 
NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
Date: July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
To: evolintgov2014 <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>

Hi 

So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group 
list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list, 
it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years and 
have interactive dialogue and collective decision making. 

We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps, the 
external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which IGF can 
learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the IGF can 
strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the gaps (inter 
alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less inclusive organizations 
and alliances). 

So some questions:

1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF - 
Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not make 
sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem fine to 
me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.? Thoughts?

2. The session description that would appear in the program would need to 
be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of the bits 
of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description, so if that 
could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.

3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the 
following:

>> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>
>>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>
>>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the 
developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The Swedish 
ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil. Requesting 
one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa might work 
here.)

I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back into 
the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven time and 
again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking head prepared 
comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and there?s no time for 
audience interaction. If we do a more moderator-driven talk show 
interactive format, it gets awkward keeping everyone in the discussion and 
the discussion well focused. I?ve co-moderated a few main session with big 
panels agreed by previous MAG+ planning groups and while they were 
interesting enough, it was a challenge to avoid having multiple 
conversational threads dangling with a big group commenting in different 
directions.

Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know several 
folks who have been invited already and assume there have been others. In 
previous years this was handled in a different, collectively agreed 
manner. 

Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and who 
has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down that road 
until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There are 18 people 
subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the only one here who 
doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got here. Either way, it 
would be good for us to proceed from here together.

Thanks,

Bill


***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140710/30065343/attachment.htm>

From bommelaer at isoc.org  Thu Jul 10 10:06:07 2014
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:06:07 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
Message-ID: <CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>

Thank you, Sorina.

There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them checked.

With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has confirmed her participation in this main session.

All the best,
Constance



From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>" <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)

Dear all,

We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get through before.

Best regards,

Sorina Teleanu
IGF Secretariat

Begin forwarded message:

From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
Date: July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
To: evolintgov2014 <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>

Hi

So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list, it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.

We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps, the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less inclusive organizations and alliances).

So some questions:

1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.? Thoughts?

2. The session description that would appear in the program would need to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description, so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.

3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the following:

>> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>
>>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>
>>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil. Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa might work here.)

I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling with a big group commenting in different directions.

Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been others. In previous years this was handled in a different, collectively agreed manner.

Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.

Thanks,

Bill


***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
ICANN, www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org/>
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org/>
***********************************************

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140710/4b887a68/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Jul 10 10:11:49 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:11:49 -0400
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evoluti?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?on_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_=28Rea?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>

While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of 
potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.

Thanks.

Matthew

On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
> Thank you, Sorina.
>
> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been 
> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them 
> checked.
>
> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi 
> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has 
> confirmed her participation in this main session.
>
> All the best,
> Constance
>
>
> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>
> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org 
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>" 
> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of 
> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF -- (Reaction to NETmundial + 
> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>
> Dear all,
>
> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get 
> through before.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sorina Teleanu
> IGF Secretariat
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward 
> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF -- (Reaction to 
> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ 
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
>
> Hi
>
> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group 
> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list, 
> it'd be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years 
> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
>
> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps, 
> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which 
> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the 
> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the 
> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn't all redirect to less 
> inclusive organizations and alliances).
>
> So some questions:
>
> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF 
> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora". Would it not 
> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem 
> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with "and the." 
> Thoughts?
>
> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need 
> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I'm not clear which of 
> the bits of text I've seen constitute the current draft description, 
> so if that could be shared for consideration it'd be really helpful.
>
> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the 
> following:
>
> >> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com_ <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
> >>>
> >>> A. The strands/org identified are:
> >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
> >>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure'
> >>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade'
> >>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
> >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
> >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
> >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
> >>>
> >>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
> >>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
> >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
> >>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
> >>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
> >>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the 
> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The 
> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there's Marco Civil. 
> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa 
> might work here.)
>
> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back 
> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven 
> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking 
> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it's boring and 
> there's no time for audience interaction. If we do a more 
> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping 
> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I've 
> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous 
> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a 
> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling 
> with a big group commenting in different directions.
>
> Second, I'm not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know 
> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been 
> others. In previous years this was handled in a different, 
> collectively agreed manner.
>
> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and 
> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down 
> that road until there's been dialogue and everyone's on board? There 
> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I'm guessing I am not the 
> only one here who doesn't quite understand where we are or how we got 
> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, _www.ncuc.org_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
> __william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>(direct), 
> _wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>(lists),_
> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> ***********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>_
> __http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140710/08bf7211/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Jul 10 10:24:20 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:24:20 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>
	<53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu>

Hi all,

I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists. 
Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive 
number of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will 
use most of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers 
are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights 
can be expected.

We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were 
run without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the 
talking. Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I 
wonder if it wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.

Best, Jeanette

Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
> While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
> potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>> Thank you, Sorina.
>>
>> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
>> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
>> checked.
>>
>> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
>> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
>> confirmed her participation in this main session.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Constance
>>
>>
>> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>
>> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
>> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>"
>> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
>> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
>> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial +
>> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
>> through before.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Sorina Teleanu
>> IGF Secretariat
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
>> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
>> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
>> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
>> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
>> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
>> it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
>> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
>>
>> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
>> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
>> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
>> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
>> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less
>> inclusive organizations and alliances).
>>
>> So some questions:
>>
>> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
>> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not
>> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
>> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
>> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of
>> the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description,
>> so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.
>>
>> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
>> following:
>>
>> >> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com_
>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>> >>>
>> >>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>> >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>> >>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>> >>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>> >>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>> >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>> >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>> >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>> >>>
>> >>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>> >>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>> >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>> >>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>> >>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>> >>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
>> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
>> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil.
>> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
>> might work here.)
>>
>> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
>> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
>> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
>> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and
>> there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
>> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
>> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve
>> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
>> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
>> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
>> with a big group commenting in different directions.
>>
>> Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
>> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
>> others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
>> collectively agreed manner.
>>
>> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
>> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
>> that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There
>> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the
>> only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got
>> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>> ICANN, _www.ncuc.org_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
>> __william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>> _wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),_
>> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>> ***********************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
>> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>_
>> __http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>



From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Jul 10 20:36:04 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:36:04 -0400
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>	<53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>

Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are 
also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can 
be expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity 
of views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons 
listed below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped 
by issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is 
plenty of time for other voices to speak.

On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists. 
> Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive 
> number of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they 
> will use most of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested 
> speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much 
> new insights can be expected.
>
> We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were 
> run without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the 
> talking. Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I 
> wonder if it wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.
>
> Best, Jeanette
>
> Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
>> While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
>> potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>>> Thank you, Sorina.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
>>> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
>>> checked.
>>>
>>> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
>>> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
>>> confirmed her participation in this main session.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Constance
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>
>>> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
>>> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>"
>>> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org 
>>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
>>> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
>>> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial +
>>> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
>>> through before.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Sorina Teleanu
>>> IGF Secretariat
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>>> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
>>> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
>>> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
>>> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
>>> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
>>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
>>> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
>>> it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
>>> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
>>>
>>> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
>>> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
>>> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
>>> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
>>> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less
>>> inclusive organizations and alliances).
>>>
>>> So some questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
>>> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not
>>> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
>>> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
>>> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of
>>> the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description,
>>> so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.
>>>
>>> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> >> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com_
>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>> >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>> >>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>> >>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>> >>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>> >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>> >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>> >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>> >>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang 
>>> Kleinw?chter
>>> >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>> >>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>> >>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>> >>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
>>> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
>>> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil.
>>> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
>>> might work here.)
>>>
>>> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
>>> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
>>> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
>>> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and
>>> there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
>>> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
>>> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve
>>> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
>>> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
>>> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
>>> with a big group commenting in different directions.
>>>
>>> Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
>>> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
>>> others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
>>> collectively agreed manner.
>>>
>>> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
>>> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
>>> that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There
>>> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the
>>> only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got
>>> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here 
>>> together.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> ***********************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>> ICANN, _www.ncuc.org_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
>>> __william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>> _wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),_
>>> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
>>> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ 
>>> <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>_
>>> __http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_ 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org 
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> mshears at cdt.org
>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org 
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org 
>

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987





From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Fri Jul 11 02:34:39 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:04:39 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
	=?utf-8?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of?=
	=?utf-8?q?_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=C2=AD_=28Rea?=
	=?utf-8?q?ction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora?=
	=?utf-8?b?Lik=?=
In-Reply-To: <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the
session. Noted. You will indeed add value.

Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been
envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a
deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to
support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons,
facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each.
Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder
and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion.

Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and we
keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an
experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists speaking
from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the top down
distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.

Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for
facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and
organisational contributions are indeed welcome.

Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established leaders
speak to key issues before and interventions might sound familiar, there
are many who are first time participants at the IGF or are relatively new
or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality interventions from
these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to contribute in building the
knowledge agenda, educating and increasing awareness amongst new
stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG ecosystem and are not
privy to the same insights that these leaders are or some of us might be.
Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two years alone is rapidly
undergoing a transformation, new processes, initiatives, commissions and
new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be well daunting and downright
impossible for many especially where there is a gap that exists between
information generators, keepers and consumers. Capacity building and
contributing to the knowledge agenda is also a key objective here.

We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation where
the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to encourage
speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries, represent small
island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by voicing concerns of
underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender balance and regional
diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we hope with such resourceful
contributors this panel will be anything but. I hope we can revisit the our
individual knowledge bases and continue to work towards this.

I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive by
thinking outside the box, proactively.

The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the
volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs,
suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers, policy
questions in the next couple of days.

So that we may move forward.

It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven
especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from
respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient
notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for
this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have been
of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue to
engage.


The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful
and substantive discussion on the next call.

regards

Subi




On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also
> know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be
> expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity of
> views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons listed
> below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped by
> issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is plenty of
> time for other voices to speak.
>
>
> On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists.
>> Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive number
>> of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will use most
>> of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also
>> know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be
>> expected.
>>
>> We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were run
>> without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the talking.
>> Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I wonder if it
>> wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.
>>
>> Best, Jeanette
>>
>> Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
>>
>>> While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
>>> potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you, Sorina.
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
>>>> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
>>>> checked.
>>>>
>>>> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
>>>> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
>>>> confirmed her participation in this main session.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>> Constance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>
>>>> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
>>>> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>"
>>>> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>>> >>
>>>> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
>>>> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial +
>>>> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
>>>> through before.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Sorina Teleanu
>>>> IGF Secretariat
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>>>> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
>>>> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
>>>> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
>>>> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
>>>> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
>>>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
>>>> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
>>>> it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
>>>> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
>>>>
>>>> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
>>>> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
>>>> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
>>>> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
>>>> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less
>>>> inclusive organizations and alliances).
>>>>
>>>> So some questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
>>>> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not
>>>> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
>>>> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
>>>> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of
>>>> the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description,
>>>> so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> >> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com_
>>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>>> >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>>> >>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>>> >>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>>> >>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>>> >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>>> >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>>> >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>>> >>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>>> >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>>> >>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>>> >>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>>> >>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
>>>> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
>>>> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil.
>>>> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
>>>> might work here.)
>>>>
>>>> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
>>>> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
>>>> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
>>>> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and
>>>> there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
>>>> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
>>>> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve
>>>> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
>>>> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
>>>> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
>>>> with a big group commenting in different directions.
>>>>
>>>> Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
>>>> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
>>>> others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
>>>> collectively agreed manner.
>>>>
>>>> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
>>>> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
>>>> that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There
>>>> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the
>>>> only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got
>>>> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>> ICANN, _www.ncuc.org_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
>>>> __william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>>> _wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),_
>>>> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
>>>> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014@
>>>> intgovforum.org>_
>>>> __http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>> evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>>>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>> evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> mshears at cdt.org
>>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>> evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/
> evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140711/a854cbdc/attachment.htm>

From Ana.Neves at fct.pt  Fri Jul 11 03:55:32 2014
From: Ana.Neves at fct.pt (Ana Neves)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:55:32 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>,
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59C56039-A190-407D-8908-3264B505D62F@fct.pt>

Dear Subi, dear colleagues,

Bearing in mind everything that has been written and explained by Subi, and supporting Bill's concerns, I think this interaction obliged me to have a new look into the session and to try to understand what would be innovative in a session like this one.

Am I understanding correctly that all these persons

IGF- Janis Karklins
ITU- Hamadoun
ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
ISOC - Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
IETF-Jari Arkko
W3C- Tim Berners Lee
Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)

were invited to speak? Because we now have A. Strands and B. Stakeholder speakers, so I understand that persons highlighted on A would be invited to talk about "their" organizations, as representatives of each strand.

If that is so, I dare to say (as this is a space to open dialogue) that for A. what would be really innovative would be to have Tour? speaking about IGF and NETmundial, Fadi about ITU, Tim Berners Lee on IGF, Janis on ISOC (and IETF), Jari on ITU and Amb. Fonseca/Prof Virgilio on ICANN and ITU. Or everyone in a different order, but the point here would be to make all these "CEOs" to truly talk about the evolution of the Internet Governance System but not in a defending  mode of "their" organizations/movements but to have a say on how they see all the other organizations in an ecosystem that they are part of.

Is it too out of your minds? Well, in my humble opinion, that it is what would make this session really interesting. I talked about this potential model with different people with different backgrounds (the so called participants) and I only had very positive inputs.

Best,

Ana



Sent from my iPad

On 11/07/2014, at 07:35, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the session. Noted. You will indeed add value.

Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion.

Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and we keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists speaking from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the top down distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.

Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and organisational contributions are indeed welcome.

Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established leaders speak to key issues before and interventions might sound familiar, there are many who are first time participants at the IGF or are relatively new or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality interventions from these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to contribute in building the knowledge agenda, educating and increasing awareness amongst new stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG ecosystem and are not privy to the same insights that these leaders are or some of us might be. Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two years alone is rapidly undergoing a transformation, new processes, initiatives, commissions and new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be well daunting and downright impossible for many especially where there is a gap that exists between information generators, keepers and consumers. Capacity building and contributing to the knowledge agenda is also a key objective here.

We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation where the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to encourage speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries, represent small island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by voicing concerns of underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender balance and regional diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we hope with such resourceful contributors this panel will be anything but. I hope we can revisit the our individual knowledge bases and continue to work towards this.

I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive by thinking outside the box, proactively.

The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs, suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers, policy questions in the next couple of days.

So that we may move forward.

It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have been of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue to engage.


The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful and substantive discussion on the next call.

regards

Subi




On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity of views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons listed below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped by issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is plenty of time for other voices to speak.


On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
Hi all,

I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists. Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive number of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will use most of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected.

We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were run without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the talking. Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.

Best, Jeanette

Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.

Thanks.

Matthew

On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
Thank you, Sorina.

There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
checked.

With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
confirmed her participation in this main session.

All the best,
Constance


From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch> <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>>
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>"
<evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial +
CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)

Dear all,

We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
through before.

Best regards,

Sorina Teleanu
IGF Secretariat

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>
*Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
*Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
*To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>

Hi

So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.

We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less
inclusive organizations and alliances).

So some questions:

1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
- Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not
make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?
Thoughts?

2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of
the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description,
so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.

3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
following:

>> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>_
<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:

>>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>
>>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>
>>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil.
Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
might work here.)

I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and
there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve
co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
with a big group commenting in different directions.

Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
collectively agreed manner.

Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There
are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the
only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got
here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.

Thanks,

Bill


***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
ICANN, _www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
__william.drake at uzh.ch<http://uzh.ch>_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> (direct),
_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> (lists),_
__www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
***********************************************

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
__Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>_
__http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_


_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
+ 44 771 247 2987



_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org


_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
+ 44 771 247 2987



_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org



From Ana.Neves at fct.pt  Fri Jul 11 04:02:34 2014
From: Ana.Neves at fct.pt (Ana Neves)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:02:34 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <59C56039-A190-407D-8908-3264B505D62F@fct.pt>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>,
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<59C56039-A190-407D-8908-3264B505D62F@fct.pt>
Message-ID: <E0EBB385-2417-4B7F-960A-951C87623350@fct.pt>

Greetings all again,

I realized that Kathy Brown/Markus were not included on my last text, as I did some copy past while writing, but I would like to have ISOC to talk about ITU and NETmundial, for example.

Apologies not to have sent the final text on my previous email, which makes me to email you again.

Best, 

Ana

Sent from my iPad

> On 11/07/2014, at 08:56, "Ana Neves" <Ana.Neves at fct.pt> wrote:
> 
> Dear Subi, dear colleagues,
> 
> Bearing in mind everything that has been written and explained by Subi, and supporting Bill's concerns, I think this interaction obliged me to have a new look into the session and to try to understand what would be innovative in a session like this one.
> 
> Am I understanding correctly that all these persons
> 
> IGF- Janis Karklins
> ITU- Hamadoun
> ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
> ISOC - Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
> IETF-Jari Arkko
> W3C- Tim Berners Lee
> Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
> 
> were invited to speak? Because we now have A. Strands and B. Stakeholder speakers, so I understand that persons highlighted on A would be invited to talk about "their" organizations, as representatives of each strand.
> 
> If that is so, I dare to say (as this is a space to open dialogue) that for A. what would be really innovative would be to have Tour? speaking about IGF and NETmundial, Fadi about ITU, Tim Berners Lee on IGF, Janis on ISOC (and IETF), Jari on ITU and Amb. Fonseca/Prof Virgilio on ICANN and ITU. Or everyone in a different order, but the point here would be to make all these "CEOs" to truly talk about the evolution of the Internet Governance System but not in a defending  mode of "their" organizations/movements but to have a say on how they see all the other organizations in an ecosystem that they are part of.
> 
> Is it too out of your minds? Well, in my humble opinion, that it is what would make this session really interesting. I talked about this potential model with different people with different backgrounds (the so called participants) and I only had very positive inputs.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ana
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 11/07/2014, at 07:35, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the session. Noted. You will indeed add value.
> 
> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion.
> 
> Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and we keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists speaking from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the top down distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.
> 
> Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and organisational contributions are indeed welcome.
> 
> Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established leaders speak to key issues before and interventions might sound familiar, there are many who are first time participants at the IGF or are relatively new or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality interventions from these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to contribute in building the knowledge agenda, educating and increasing awareness amongst new stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG ecosystem and are not privy to the same insights that these leaders are or some of us might be. Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two years alone is rapidly undergoing a transformation, new processes, initiatives, commissions and new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be well daunting and downright impossible for many especially where there is a gap that exists between information generators, keepers and consumers. Capacity building and contributing to the knowledge agenda is also a key objective here.
> 
> We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation where the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to encourage speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries, represent small island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by voicing concerns of underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender balance and regional diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we hope with such resourceful contributors this panel will be anything but. I hope we can revisit the our individual knowledge bases and continue to work towards this.
> 
> I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive by thinking outside the box, proactively.
> 
> The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs, suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers, policy questions in the next couple of days.
> 
> So that we may move forward.
> 
> It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have been of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue to engage.
> 
> 
> The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful and substantive discussion on the next call.
> 
> regards
> 
> Subi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
> Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity of views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons listed below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped by issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is plenty of time for other voices to speak.
> 
> 
> On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists. Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive number of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will use most of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected.
> 
> We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were run without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the talking. Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.
> 
> Best, Jeanette
> 
> Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
> While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
> potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
> Thank you, Sorina.
> 
> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
> checked.
> 
> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
> confirmed her participation in this main session.
> 
> All the best,
> Constance
> 
> 
> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch> <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>>
> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>"
> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial +
> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
> through before.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Sorina Teleanu
> IGF Secretariat
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>
> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
> 
> Hi
> 
> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
> it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
> 
> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less
> inclusive organizations and alliances).
> 
> So some questions:
> 
> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not
> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?
> Thoughts?
> 
> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of
> the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description,
> so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.
> 
> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
> following:
> 
>>> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>_
> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> 
>>>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>> 
>>>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>> 
>>>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil.
> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
> might work here.)
> 
> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and
> there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve
> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
> with a big group commenting in different directions.
> 
> Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
> others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
> collectively agreed manner.
> 
> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
> that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There
> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the
> only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got
> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, _www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
> __william.drake at uzh.ch<http://uzh.ch>_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> (direct),
> _wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> (lists),_
> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> ***********************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>_
> __http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> + 44 771 247 2987
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> + 44 771 247 2987
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org



From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Jul 11 04:21:50 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:21:50 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>
	<53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu>
	<53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53BF9E9E.20308@wzb.eu>

Subi,

even if I won't convince you I'd like at least to have registered my 
strong doubts about the proposed setting.

My concern is that this "established leaders"-centered approach 
contributes to the ceremonialization of the IGF. We are celebrating 
names and roles instead of working on the issues and making practical 
progress.
All these great names could as well make their points from the audience 
- as they did very well at NetMundial. Why do we repeat times and again 
a discussion format that makes the audience unhappy?

As an aside, the term "leader" doesn't work well in all political 
cultures. It makes Germans shudder.

Jeanette

Am 11.07.14 08:34, schrieb Subi Chaturvedi:
> Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the
> session. Noted. You will indeed add value.
>
> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been
> envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around
> a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough
> to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource
> persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4
> minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions,
> representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach
> and opinion.
>
> Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and
> we keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an
> experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists
> speaking from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the
> top down distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.
>
> Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for
> facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and
> organisational contributions are indeed welcome.
>
> Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established
> leaders speak to key issues before and interventions might sound
> familiar, there are many who are first time participants at the IGF or
> are relatively new or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality
> interventions from these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to
> contribute in building the knowledge agenda, educating and increasing
> awareness amongst new stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG
> ecosystem and are not privy to the same insights that these leaders are
> or some of us might be. Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two
> years alone is rapidly undergoing a transformation, new processes,
> initiatives, commissions and new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be
> well daunting and downright impossible for many especially where there
> is a gap that exists between information generators, keepers and
> consumers. Capacity building and contributing to the knowledge agenda is
> also a key objective here.
>
> We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation
> where the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to
> encourage speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries,
> represent small island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by
> voicing concerns of underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender
> balance and regional diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we
> hope with such resourceful contributors this panel will be anything but.
> I hope we can revisit the our individual knowledge bases and continue to
> work towards this.
>
> I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive
> by thinking outside the box, proactively.
>
> The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the
> volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs,
> suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers,
> policy questions in the next couple of days.
>
> So that we may move forward.
>
> It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven
> especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from
> respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient
> notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for
> this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have
> been of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue
> to engage.
>
>
> The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful
> and substantive discussion on the next call.
>
> regards
>
> Subi
>
>
>
>
> On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
>     Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are
>     also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights
>     can be expected."  The session would be better served by a greater
>     diversity of views and representation.   Why not just ask each of
>     the persons listed below to speak for 1 minute from the audience -
>     perhaps grouped by issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"?
>     That way there is plenty of time for other voices to speak.
>
>
>     On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of
>         panelists. Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with
>         such an extensive number of speakers because it seems clear from
>         the outset that they will use most of the speaking time. Most if
>         not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and
>         speak so often that not much new insights can be expected.
>
>         We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions
>         were run without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience
>         did the talking. Some of these sessions were good, some of them
>         less so. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this
>         format.
>
>         Best, Jeanette
>
>         Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
>
>             While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the
>             list of
>             potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
>
>             Thanks.
>
>             Matthew
>
>             On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>
>                 Thank you, Sorina.
>
>                 There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I
>                 have been
>                 receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists
>                 to have them
>                 checked.
>
>                 With regards to the list of speakers below, I can
>                 confirm that Subi
>                 has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of
>                 ISOC) who has
>                 confirmed her participation in this main session.
>
>                 All the best,
>                 Constance
>
>
>                 From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch
>                 <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch> <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch
>                 <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>>
>                 Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
>                 To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.__org
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at __intgovforum.org
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>"
>                 <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.__org
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at __intgovforum.org
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
>                 Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward
>                 Evolution of
>                 Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
>                 NETmundial +
>                 CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>
>                 Dear all,
>
>                 We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it
>                 didn't get
>                 through before.
>
>                 Best regards,
>
>                 Sorina Teleanu
>                 IGF Secretariat
>
>                 Begin forwarded message:
>
>                 *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com_
>                 <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>
>                 *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps:
>                 Way Forward
>                 Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ?
>                 (Reaction to
>                 NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
>                 *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
>                 *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.__org_
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at __intgovforum.org
>                 <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
>
>                 Hi
>
>                 So according to the archives, the last messages to this
>                 planning group
>                 list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the
>                 main MAG list,
>                 it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in
>                 previous years
>                 and have interactive dialogue and collective decision
>                 making.
>
>                 We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in
>                 two steps,
>                 the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and
>                 from which
>                 IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then
>                 turn to how the
>                 IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and
>                 help fill the
>                 gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect
>                 to less
>                 inclusive organizations and alliances).
>
>                 So some questions:
>
>                 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance
>                 Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
>                 - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other
>                 fora?. Would it not
>                 make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first
>                 half would seem
>                 fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/"
>                 with ?and the.?
>                 Thoughts?
>
>                 2. The session description that would appear in the
>                 program would need
>                 to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not
>                 clear which of
>                 the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft
>                 description,
>                 so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be
>                 really helpful.
>
>                 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG
>                 list, listed the
>                 following:
>
>                  >> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi
>                 <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com_
>                 <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.__com
>                 <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>                  >>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>                  >>>
>                  >>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>                  >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>                  >>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>                  >>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>                  >>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>                  >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>                  >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>                  >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>                  >>>
>                  >>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>                  >>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/
>                 Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>                  >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron
>                 Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>                  >>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland
>                 (CIRA)
>                  >>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>                  >>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and
>                 another from the
>                 developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed
>                 Vaizy (The
>                 Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s
>                 Marco Civil.
>                 Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China,
>                 South Africa
>                 might work here.)
>
>                 I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not
>                 falling back
>                 into the trap of building enormous panels, because it
>                 has been proven
>                 time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do
>                 serial talking
>                 head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s
>                 boring and
>                 there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
>                 moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets
>                 awkward keeping
>                 everyone in the discussion and the discussion well
>                 focused. I?ve
>                 co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed
>                 by previous
>                 MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting
>                 enough, it was a
>                 challenge to avoid having multiple conversational
>                 threads dangling
>                 with a big group commenting in different directions.
>
>                 Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided,
>                 but I know
>                 several folks who have been invited already and assume
>                 there have been
>                 others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
>                 collectively agreed manner.
>
>                 Could we please have an update on who has been invited
>                 already, and
>                 who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going
>                 further down
>                 that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on
>                 board? There
>                 are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I
>                 am not the
>                 only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are
>                 or how we got
>                 here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed
>                 from here together.
>
>                 Thanks,
>
>                 Bill
>
>
>                 ******************************__*****************
>                 William J. Drake
>                 International Fellow & Lecturer
>                 Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>                 University of Zurich, Switzerland
>                 Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>                 ICANN, _www.ncuc.org_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
>                 __william.drake at uzh.ch_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch
>                 <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> (direct),
>                 _wjdrake at gmail.com_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> (lists),_
>                 __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>                 ******************************__*****************
>
>                 _________________________________________________
>                 Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
>                 __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.__org_
>                 <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at __intgovforum.org
>                 <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>_
>                 __http://mail.intgovforum.org/__mailman/listinfo/__evolintgov2014_intgovforum.__org_
>                 <http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_>
>
>
>
>                 _________________________________________________
>                 Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>                 Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>                 <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>                 http://mail.intgovforum.org/__mailman/listinfo/__evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>                 <http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>             --
>             Matthew Shears
>             Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>             Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>             mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>             + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
>             _________________________________________________
>             Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>             Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>             <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>             http://mail.intgovforum.org/__mailman/listinfo/__evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>             <http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>         _________________________________________________
>         Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>         Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>         <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>         http://mail.intgovforum.org/__mailman/listinfo/__evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>         <http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Matthew Shears
>     Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>     Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>     mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>     + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>     Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>     http://mail.intgovforum.org/__mailman/listinfo/__evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>     <http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>



From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Jul 11 04:35:01 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:35:01 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>

Hi Subi

Thanks for this.

On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion. 

I suspect many folks would agree that Town Hall with initial remarks is a good format.  The questions to be sorted are:

1.  Number of initial remarkers:  4 minutes x your initial suggested list of a dozen or more would make for quite a long period of the audience being talked to before they get to participate.  One also wonders whether Secretary Generals etc. will be happy to speak for just 3-4 minutes, and how comfortable the moderator will be pushing them to wrap it up if they go over.

2.  Composition of the group: I take your point that hearing some 'established leaders? might not seem like ?old news? to many attendees even if veterans find it a bit familiar.  It?s just a question of balance, 7 being a lot.  Stakeholder voices are equally important, and the group there needs to be inclusive of varying viewpoints and demographics.

3.  Focus of ?leader? comments: I share Ana?s concern that asking leaders to speak about what their organizations are doing could lead to standard talking point explanations and defenses of their activities.  We have seen this many many times in IGF main sessions over the past decade, and with all due respect to the participants it has been known to occasion impromptu coffee breaks and Facebook checking.  Asking them to speak to larger developments, e.g. the state of play and future prospects for the ?ecosystem,? would seem more interesting.  I don?t know though about asking them to address developments in each others? organizations, that seems a bit diplomatically unusual and potentially uncomfortable.

4.  The distribution of topical foci and interventions over the three hours:  Again, if we are going to have a discussion that moves from external events and the implications for the IGF?s role to how the IGF can respond in terms of strengthening its processes and filling gaps, then the speakers/time slots need to be allocated across this narrative.

5.  Moderator(s): With this design and composition we?ll really need experienced people who are clued into the issues and now how to keep a discussion on track.  My suggestion would be one moderator for the ecosystem developments piece and one for the IGF response piece, which would be less exhausting for whomever and increase diversity.

So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list, which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are reasons this has never been done before.  

Thank you,

Bill


From Ana.Neves at fct.pt  Fri Jul 11 05:01:34 2014
From: Ana.Neves at fct.pt (Ana Neves)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:01:34 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B0768582-9FE2-4A42-AD68-E41ABF9F59D2@fct.pt>

Dear Subi and dear all,

I concur with all the remarks made (since mine).

On addressing developments in each others' organizations - that would not be really the purpose as if I think the defensive mode will not help us in the discussion, the offensive mode would be much worse. Not the purpose, at all.

My intention is to make those persons that are working hardly in the Internet ecosystem to try to broaden their views and not to talk about others? organizations but to bear in mind that when they talk in an IGF, it would be good to have new perspectives from these persons regarding the evolution of the Internet ecosystem and to think about other organizations and not "others' organizations" as Bill correctly mentioned. I don't think it will very interesting to hear again that the organization X or Z is the best one and it's making the best of the MS model, while I find very interesting if they are somehow invited to speak in a positive mode on how they face such evolution having in mind the interests and the roles of "others' organizations" and processes. That I hope could trigger a very interesting debate from the audience.

By no means I want to propose anything that would be potential uncomfortable, but on the other hand, people have to start to talk about the evolution and the future in an inclusive manner. That would be extremely helpful to bridge the gap between governments of different countries as for the time being they are too attached to certain organizations which spoils the whole dialogue or doesn't allow any, and if one sees that organizations talk among themselves,  that would be extremely useful to the world as Internet is a global resource and therefore touches everyone. And that dialogue is extremely useful if we want to advance e.g. at UN resolutions that are lagging behind any evolution of the system, and this is crucial still for this year discussions at different settings.

Best,

Ana



Sent from my iPad

On 11/07/2014, at 09:32, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Subi

Thanks for this.

On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:

Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion.

I suspect many folks would agree that Town Hall with initial remarks is a good format.  The questions to be sorted are:

1.  Number of initial remarkers:  4 minutes x your initial suggested list of a dozen or more would make for quite a long period of the audience being talked to before they get to participate.  One also wonders whether Secretary Generals etc. will be happy to speak for just 3-4 minutes, and how comfortable the moderator will be pushing them to wrap it up if they go over.

2.  Composition of the group: I take your point that hearing some 'established leaders? might not seem like ?old news? to many attendees even if veterans find it a bit familiar.  It?s just a question of balance, 7 being a lot.  Stakeholder voices are equally important, and the group there needs to be inclusive of varying viewpoints and demographics.

3.  Focus of ?leader? comments: I share Ana?s concern that asking leaders to speak about what their organizations are doing could lead to standard talking point explanations and defenses of their activities.  We have seen this many many times in IGF main sessions over the past decade, and with all due respect to the participants it has been known to occasion impromptu coffee breaks and Facebook checking.  Asking them to speak to larger developments, e.g. the state of play and future prospects for the ?ecosystem,? would seem more interesting.  I don?t know though about asking them to address developments in each others? organizations, that seems a bit diplomatically unusual and potentially uncomfortable.

4.  The distribution of topical foci and interventions over the three hours:  Again, if we are going to have a discussion that moves from external events and the implications for the IGF?s role to how the IGF can respond in terms of strengthening its processes and filling gaps, then the speakers/time slots need to be allocated across this narrative.

5.  Moderator(s): With this design and composition we?ll really need experienced people who are clued into the issues and now how to keep a discussion on track.  My suggestion would be one moderator for the ecosystem developments piece and one for the IGF response piece, which would be less exhausting for whomever and increase diversity.

So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list, which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are reasons this has never been done before.

Thank you,

Bill
_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org



From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Fri Jul 11 05:17:12 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:47:12 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
	=?utf-8?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of?=
	=?utf-8?q?_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=C2=AD_=28Rea?=
	=?utf-8?q?ction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora?=
	=?utf-8?b?Lik=?=
In-Reply-To: <59C56039-A190-407D-8908-3264B505D62F@fct.pt>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<59C56039-A190-407D-8908-3264B505D62F@fct.pt>
Message-ID: <CANRKRpLEjCzXmcmAcHz_JFfpn4AXT35=af65P-AL4G9Y8iZY1g@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Ana. Deeply insightful. Some invites have gone, bearing in mind
respective calenders. We're holding off on others for now till we're able
to build broader consensus on the overall structure.

Adding your inputs to the note. Many thanks for your constructive
suggestions.

Regards

Subi

On 11 Jul 2014 13:25, "Ana Neves" <Ana.Neves at fct.pt> wrote:
>
> Dear Subi, dear colleagues,
>
> Bearing in mind everything that has been written and explained by Subi,
and supporting Bill's concerns, I think this interaction obliged me to have
a new look into the session and to try to understand what would be
innovative in a session like this one.
>
> Am I understanding correctly that all these persons
>
> IGF- Janis Karklins
> ITU- Hamadoun
> ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
> ISOC - Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
> IETF-Jari Arkko
> W3C- Tim Berners Lee
> Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>
> were invited to speak? Because we now have A. Strands and B. Stakeholder
speakers, so I understand that persons highlighted on A would be invited to
talk about "their" organizations, as representatives of each strand.
>
> If that is so, I dare to say (as this is a space to open dialogue) that
for A. what would be really innovative would be to have Tour? speaking
about IGF and NETmundial, Fadi about ITU, Tim Berners Lee on IGF, Janis on
ISOC (and IETF), Jari on ITU and Amb. Fonseca/Prof Virgilio on ICANN and
ITU. Or everyone in a different order, but the point here would be to make
all these "CEOs" to truly talk about the evolution of the Internet
Governance System but not in a defending  mode of "their"
organizations/movements but to have a say on how they see all the other
organizations in an ecosystem that they are part of.
>
> Is it too out of your minds? Well, in my humble opinion, that it is what
would make this session really interesting. I talked about this potential
model with different people with different backgrounds (the so called
participants) and I only had very positive inputs.
>
> Best,
>
> Ana
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 11/07/2014, at 07:35, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the
session. Noted. You will indeed add value.
>
> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been
envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a
deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to
support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons,
facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each.
Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder
and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion.
>
> Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and we
keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an
experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists speaking
from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the top down
distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.
>
> Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for
facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and
organisational contributions are indeed welcome.
>
> Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established
leaders speak to key issues before and interventions might sound familiar,
there are many who are first time participants at the IGF or are relatively
new or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality interventions from
these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to contribute in building the
knowledge agenda, educating and increasing awareness amongst new
stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG ecosystem and are not
privy to the same insights that these leaders are or some of us might be.
Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two years alone is rapidly
undergoing a transformation, new processes, initiatives, commissions and
new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be well daunting and downright
impossible for many especially where there is a gap that exists between
information generators, keepers and consumers. Capacity building and
contributing to the knowledge agenda is also a key objective here.
>
> We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation
where the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to
encourage speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries,
represent small island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by voicing
concerns of underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender balance and
regional diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we hope with such
resourceful contributors this panel will be anything but. I hope we can
revisit the our individual knowledge bases and continue to work towards
this.
>
> I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive
by thinking outside the box, proactively.
>
> The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the
volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs,
suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers, policy
questions in the next couple of days.
>
> So that we may move forward.
>
> It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven
especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from
respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient
notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for
this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have been
of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue to
engage.
>
>
> The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful
and substantive discussion on the next call.
>
> regards
>
> Subi
>
>
>
>
> On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:
mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
> Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also
know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be
expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity of
views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons listed
below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped by
issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is plenty of
time for other voices to speak.
>
>
> On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists.
Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive number
of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will use most
of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also
know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be
expected.
>
> We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were run
without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the talking.
Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I wonder if it
wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.
>
> Best, Jeanette
>
> Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
> While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
> potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
> Thank you, Sorina.
>
> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
> checked.
>
> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
> confirmed her participation in this main session.
>
> All the best,
> Constance
>
>
> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch> <mailto:
STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>>
> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:
evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>"
> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>>
> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial +
> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>
> Dear all,
>
> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
> through before.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sorina Teleanu
> IGF Secretariat
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_
<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>
> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:
evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
>
> Hi
>
> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
> it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
>
> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less
> inclusive organizations and alliances).
>
> So some questions:
>
> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not
> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?
> Thoughts?
>
> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of
> the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description,
> so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.
>
> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
> following:
>
> >> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:
subichaturvedi at gmail.com>_
> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> >>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
> >>>
> >>> A. The strands/org identified are:
> >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
> >>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
> >>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
> >>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
> >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
> >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
> >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
> >>>
> >>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
> >>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
> >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
> >>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
> >>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
> >>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil.
> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
> might work here.)
>
> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and
> there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve
> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
> with a big group commenting in different directions.
>
> Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
> others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
> collectively agreed manner.
>
> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
> that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There
> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the
> only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got
> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, _www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
> __william.drake at uzh.ch<http://uzh.ch>_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch
<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> (direct),
> _wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com
<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> (lists),_
> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> ***********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>_
> __
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140711/a0bda114/attachment.htm>

From kummer at isoc.org  Fri Jul 11 04:16:24 2014
From: kummer at isoc.org (Markus Kummer)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:16:24 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?=5BIGFmaglist=5D__Next_Steps=3A?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_Way_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/?=
 =?windows-1252?q?Role_of_IGF_=AD_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <E0EBB385-2417-4B7F-960A-951C87623350@fct.pt>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>,
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<59C56039-A190-407D-8908-3264B505D62F@fct.pt>,
	<E0EBB385-2417-4B7F-960A-951C87623350@fct.pt>
Message-ID: <213310E3-8374-4569-A49F-E6E7F1B3440B@isoc.org>

Dear all,

While my name is listed as a potential speaker, please note that I am not a candidate! I like Ana's innovative approach, but have my doubts whether the speakers would agree to go along.

Basically, I share the concerns expressed by Bill, Jeanette and Matthew. There are too many speakers listed and they are the 'usual suspects ' - many of them will also speak at the opening ceremony. I strongly urge to revisit the general approach and also suggest an open round table format. As Matthew suggested, we could give each of the speakers an opportunity to give a short statement (max 1 minute - my preference would 30 seconds). This worked at NETmundial - it can also work at the IGF!

Best regards
Markus

...

> On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:03, "Ana Neves" <Ana.Neves at fct.pt> wrote:
> 
> Greetings all again,
> 
> I realized that Kathy Brown/Markus were not included on my last text, as I did some copy past while writing, but I would like to have ISOC to talk about ITU and NETmundial, for example.
> 
> Apologies not to have sent the final text on my previous email, which makes me to email you again.
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Ana
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 11/07/2014, at 08:56, "Ana Neves" <Ana.Neves at fct.pt> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Subi, dear colleagues,
>> 
>> Bearing in mind everything that has been written and explained by Subi, and supporting Bill's concerns, I think this interaction obliged me to have a new look into the session and to try to understand what would be innovative in a session like this one.
>> 
>> Am I understanding correctly that all these persons
>> 
>> IGF- Janis Karklins
>> ITU- Hamadoun
>> ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>> ISOC - Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>> IETF-Jari Arkko
>> W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>> Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>> 
>> were invited to speak? Because we now have A. Strands and B. Stakeholder speakers, so I understand that persons highlighted on A would be invited to talk about "their" organizations, as representatives of each strand.
>> 
>> If that is so, I dare to say (as this is a space to open dialogue) that for A. what would be really innovative would be to have Tour? speaking about IGF and NETmundial, Fadi about ITU, Tim Berners Lee on IGF, Janis on ISOC (and IETF), Jari on ITU and Amb. Fonseca/Prof Virgilio on ICANN and ITU. Or everyone in a different order, but the point here would be to make all these "CEOs" to truly talk about the evolution of the Internet Governance System but not in a defending  mode of "their" organizations/movements but to have a say on how they see all the other organizations in an ecosystem that they are part of.
>> 
>> Is it too out of your minds? Well, in my humble opinion, that it is what would make this session really interesting. I talked about this potential model with different people with different backgrounds (the so called participants) and I only had very positive inputs.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ana
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 11/07/2014, at 07:35, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the session. Noted. You will indeed add value.
>> 
>> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion.
>> 
>> Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and we keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists speaking from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the top down distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.
>> 
>> Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and organisational contributions are indeed welcome.
>> 
>> Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established leaders speak to key issues before and interventions might sound familiar, there are many who are first time participants at the IGF or are relatively new or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality interventions from these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to contribute in building the knowledge agenda, educating and increasing awareness amongst new stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG ecosystem and are not privy to the same insights that these leaders are or some of us might be. Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two years alone is rapidly undergoing a transformation, new processes, initiatives, commissions and new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be well daunting and downright impossible for many especially where there is a gap that exists between information generators, keepers and consumers. Capacity building and contributing to the knowledge agenda is also a key objective here.
>> 
>> We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation where the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to encourage speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries, represent small island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by voicing concerns of underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender balance and regional diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we hope with such resourceful contributors this panel will be anything but. I hope we can revisit the our individual knowledge bases and continue to work towards this.
>> 
>> I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive by thinking outside the box, proactively.
>> 
>> The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs, suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers, policy questions in the next couple of days.
>> 
>> So that we may move forward.
>> 
>> It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have been of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue to engage.
>> 
>> 
>> The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful and substantive discussion on the next call.
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> Subi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>> Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity of views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons listed below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped by issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is plenty of time for other voices to speak.
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists. Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive number of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will use most of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected.
>> 
>> We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were run without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the talking. Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.
>> 
>> Best, Jeanette
>> 
>> Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
>> While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
>> potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Matthew
>> 
>> On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>> Thank you, Sorina.
>> 
>> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
>> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
>> checked.
>> 
>> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
>> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
>> confirmed her participation in this main session.
>> 
>> All the best,
>> Constance
>> 
>> 
>> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch> <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>>
>> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
>> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>"
>> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
>> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
>> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to NETmundial +
>> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
>> through before.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Sorina Teleanu
>> IGF Secretariat
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>
>> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
>> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? (Reaction to
>> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
>> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
>> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
>> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
>> it?d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
>> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
>> 
>> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
>> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
>> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
>> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
>> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn?t all redirect to less
>> inclusive organizations and alliances).
>> 
>> So some questions:
>> 
>> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
>> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora?. Would it not
>> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
>> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with ?and the.?
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
>> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I?m not clear which of
>> the bits of text I?ve seen constitute the current draft description,
>> so if that could be shared for consideration it?d be really helpful.
>> 
>> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
>> following:
>> 
>>>> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>_
>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>>> 
>>>>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>>>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure?
>>>>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade?
>>>>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>>> 
>>>>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>>>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>>>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>>>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>>>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
>> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
>> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there?s Marco Civil.
>> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
>> might work here.)
>> 
>> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
>> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
>> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
>> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it?s boring and
>> there?s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
>> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
>> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I?ve
>> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
>> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
>> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
>> with a big group commenting in different directions.
>> 
>> Second, I?m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
>> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
>> others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
>> collectively agreed manner.
>> 
>> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
>> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
>> that road until there?s been dialogue and everyone?s on board? There
>> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I?m guessing I am not the
>> only one here who doesn?t quite understand where we are or how we got
>> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>> ICANN, _www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
>> __william.drake at uzh.ch<http://uzh.ch>_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> (direct),
>> _wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> (lists),_
>> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>> ***********************************************
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
>> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>_
>> __http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>> 
>> --
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>> + 44 771 247 2987
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>> 
>> --
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>> + 44 771 247 2987
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org



From wjdrake at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 05:38:20 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:38:20 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evoluti?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?on_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_=28Rea?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?=29?=
In-Reply-To: <F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>

Third request

On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:35 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list, which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are reasons this has never been done before.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140714/84a70fa1/attachment.htm>

From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Mon Jul 14 07:30:19 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:00:19 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
	=?utf-8?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of?=
	=?utf-8?q?_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=C2=AD_=28Rea?=
	=?utf-8?q?ction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora?=
	=?utf-8?b?Lik=?=
In-Reply-To: <F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANRKRp+xqzOxoqXPXALpBi9s9n6EhVF9Whg0GLy5P6wW0rEjBw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Marilyn,

Do please let me know if you are well.  My repeated attempts to reach you
have gone answered. I hope you are safe and well. Deeply concerned. Bill
and the others are quite keen and awaiting the revised note. Since you're
Co-facilitating this, we can't move forward on this session without your
inputs.

Markus I have your inputs, thank you for your valuable comments. Mathew has
also written in and so have Bill and Ana. Great additions all.

All the other MAG members and session volunteers are also requested to
please provide their inputs by COB today, so that a revised note can be
circulated integrating everybody's comments, for facilitating a substantive
discussion on the session and for further decision making.

I may be reached at M:+91-9999151433 . My Skype id  is: subi.apex

People reached out to thus far: Kathy Brown (ISOC), Fadi Chehade (ICANN),
Milton Mueller (GIGA  NET), Dr. Hamadoun Toure' (ITU), Avri Doria, Vint
Cerf (Google).

Speaker invites will resume once we have a broader consensus on the session
format, and key policy questions.

All your inputs have been extremely helpful. Do please continue with your
contributions.
Special word of thanks to Baher, Constance, Marilyn, Kossi, Izumi, Filiz,
Vlada, Paul,Ana, Olga and Janis for their inputs too.


Regards,


Subi


On 14 July 2014 15:08, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Third request
>
> On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:35 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask that
> you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and who has
> accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list, which is a good
> indicator of keen interest in the community.  We cannot collaboratively
> program a main session with only one or two people knowing who?s been
> invited or has accepted, and there are reasons this has never been done
> before.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140714/7c882916/attachment.htm>

From shlegel at duma.gov.ru  Thu Jul 17 08:49:12 2014
From: shlegel at duma.gov.ru (=?utf-8?B?0KjQu9C10LPQtdC70Yw=?=
	=?utf-8?B?INCgLtCQLg==?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:49:12 +0400
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Letter from a member of the MAG Robert Shlegel
Message-ID: <b6597652-7889-4713-9479-66840c5754e0@duma.gov.ru>



Dear SubiChaturvedi, Marilyn Cade!
At theupcoming IGF I would like to speak at the workshop "Evolution ofthe Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? Reaction to NETmundial, CSTD,WSIS, ITU, other fora." It's not a secret that the current number of attempts toimplement Internet regulation has significantly increased. Some of them areaimed at achieving a real consensus, while others are a frank imitation and anattempt to preserve the existing situation of anarchy and confusion. I believe,that issues dividing the outcome of such events should be raised in thissection. 
Best regards,
Robert Shlegel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140717/5ab507fe/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Jul 18 06:18:12 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:18:12 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evoluti?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?on_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_=28Rea?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?=29?=
In-Reply-To: <F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003E4F2D-72A2-47AF-897D-B0925FBCFCB8@gmail.com>

Hi

The secretariat has given us a deadline of 4 August to complete the main sessions.  The others appear to be moving along nicely now, but the ecosystem/Role of IGF session seems to be moving slowly.  With 31 minds gathered on the dedicated working group list, surely we can brainstorm this forward in the usual collaborative manner.

So what we now know is

On Jul 14, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:

> People reached out to thus far: Kathy Brown (ISOC), Fadi Chehade (ICANN), Milton Mueller (GIGA  NET), Dr. Hamadoun Toure' (ITU), Avri Doria, Vint Cerf (Google).
> 
> Speaker invites will resume once we have a broader consensus on the session format, and key policy questions.

All good folks most of whom we know will be there (Avri?s TBD) so probably we can count on them, but will still need confirmations.

The initial suggestion in April was to divide the event into two panels, a first of high-level leaders and then a second of stakeholders.  Since then two things have happened: a) as noted previously, the MAG decided several calls ago to revise the session to move in two stages, looking first at events in the larger ecosystem that have implications for the IGF and its role (org/process-specific, e.g. NETmundial & Alliance, WGEC, ITU, etc.,  and larger cross-cutting trends) and then second at how the IGF could adapt itself in respond to help fill the holes and meet the challenges, especially at a time when other, differently configured initiatives maybe be adding to a remapped space.  b) a number of people expressed concerns here about the utility of a ?leaders panel? on the grounds that it could end up defaulting to standard descriptions of each organizations? activities etc. rather than engaging those leaders in a more probing assessment of the ecosystem?s current state, challenges, future prospects, and choices that need to be made.

Accordingly, I would suggest we consider what the configuration the MAG endorsed might look like, building from the people already invited and the other options Subi suggested we consider.  Below is a first crack at that?


Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem

Moderator: TBD

Panelists:
Fadi Chehade (TC)  TBC
Hamadoun Toure? (IGO)  TBC
Milton Mueller (Civil society)  TBC

Panel 2: The Role of the IGF

Moderator: TBD
Avri Doria (CS) TBC
Kathy Brown (TC)  TBC
Vint Cerf (Private sector)

This would be a good starting point, with people who each would have a lot to say on the specific topics.  We would need two to three more per panel.  (An aside: on Day Zero there will be a release event for a book I?m editing with 16 chapters by different people concerning implementation of the NETmundial Roadmap on institutions, which includes chapters on strengthening the IGF by Markus, Jeremy Malcolm, and Vint and Co., so having ISOC and Google on the second panel could build on that Day Zero discussion.  The book release will be part of a full day program on NM followup).

Subi also suggested as possibilities 

> > >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
> > >>> 4. ISOC- / Markus Kummer
> > >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
> > >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
> > >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Academia: Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
> > >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
> > >>> 3. Technical Community:  Byron Holland (CIRA)
> > >>> 4. Private Sector:  Zahid Jamil

All good names we could consider.  There are of course many others we know will be in attendance would could add diversity in viewpoint and demographics.  I cannot get the list of provisional registrations to load http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list yields but just off the top of my head there?s:

Govt/IGO: Megan Richards, Larry Strickling and Fiona Alexander, Olga, Alice, Towela, Mohammed AlQurashi, Benedicto or someone else from BRICs...
PS: Pate Kane, Phil Rushton, Jimson, Marilyn
TC: Paul, Geoff Huston, Emily Taylor , Izumi Okutani, Adiel Akplogan  
CS: Anriette Marilia Maciel, Jeremy Malcolm, Adam Peake
And many others people here could name...

Also, we had a self-nomination yesterday,

> Dear Subi Chaturvedi, Marilyn Cade!
> 
> At the upcoming IGF I would like to speak at the workshop " Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? Reaction to NETmundial, CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora ." It's not a secret that the current number of attempts to implement Internet regulation has significantly increased. Some of them are aimed at achieving a real consensus, while others are a frank imitation and an attempt to preserve the existing situation of anarchy and confusion. I believe, that issues dividing the outcome of such events should be raised in this section.
> 
> Best regards,
> Robert Shlegel
> 
Personally, I would argue for including Larry Strickling and/or Megan Richards to bring out consequential US/EU views, and perhaps KSA or a similarly minded govt that has issues with the ecosystem that are worth airing.  I would also strongly consider Geoff Huston on the grounds that he?s invariably interesting and audiences always love his presentations.  And any of the CS people mentioned have been consistent voices for strengthening the IGF?


Thoughts?  Can we work at filling in the empty slots?

Bill



On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:35 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Subi
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion. 
> 
> I suspect many folks would agree that Town Hall with initial remarks is a good format.  The questions to be sorted are:
> 
> 1.  Number of initial remarkers:  4 minutes x your initial suggested list of a dozen or more would make for quite a long period of the audience being talked to before they get to participate.  One also wonders whether Secretary Generals etc. will be happy to speak for just 3-4 minutes, and how comfortable the moderator will be pushing them to wrap it up if they go over.
> 
> 2.  Composition of the group: I take your point that hearing some 'established leaders? might not seem like ?old news? to many attendees even if veterans find it a bit familiar.  It?s just a question of balance, 7 being a lot.  Stakeholder voices are equally important, and the group there needs to be inclusive of varying viewpoints and demographics.
> 
> 3.  Focus of ?leader? comments: I share Ana?s concern that asking leaders to speak about what their organizations are doing could lead to standard talking point explanations and defenses of their activities.  We have seen this many many times in IGF main sessions over the past decade, and with all due respect to the participants it has been known to occasion impromptu coffee breaks and Facebook checking.  Asking them to speak to larger developments, e.g. the state of play and future prospects for the ?ecosystem,? would seem more interesting.  I don?t know though about asking them to address developments in each others? organizations, that seems a bit diplomatically unusual and potentially uncomfortable.
> 
> 4.  The distribution of topical foci and interventions over the three hours:  Again, if we are going to have a discussion that moves from external events and the implications for the IGF?s role to how the IGF can respond in terms of strengthening its processes and filling gaps, then the speakers/time slots need to be allocated across this narrative.
> 
> 5.  Moderator(s): With this design and composition we?ll really need experienced people who are clued into the issues and now how to keep a discussion on track.  My suggestion would be one moderator for the ecosystem developments piece and one for the IGF response piece, which would be less exhausting for whomever and increase diversity.
> 
> So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list, which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are reasons this has never been done before.  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Bill

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140718/3ad4bc1f/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Fri Jul 18 07:50:21 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:50:21 -0400
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <003E4F2D-72A2-47AF-897D-B0925FBCFCB8@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>
	<53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu>
	<53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<003E4F2D-72A2-47AF-897D-B0925FBCFCB8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53C909FD.70000@acm.org>

Hi,

As much as I am interested in this topic and appreciate the invitation,
I had told Subi, that I probably could not do this panel.

1. I had already agreed to be on the panel for IANA transition and did
not think being on two main session panels was the thing to do.

2. while i assume the schedule is still somewhat flexible, as it
currently stand I have an Open Forum and a DC in the same time slot I am
expected to be at.

Thanks

avri

BTW, at this point i have purchased the air ticket so expect i will be
there, all thing being equal.

On 18-Jul-14 06:18, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> The secretariat has given us a deadline of 4 August to complete the main
> sessions.  The others appear to be moving along nicely now, but the
> ecosystem/Role of IGF session seems to be moving slowly.  With 31 minds
> gathered on the dedicated working group list, surely we can brainstorm
> this forward in the usual collaborative manner.
> 
> So what we now know is
> 
> On Jul 14, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> People reached out to thus far: Kathy Brown (ISOC), Fadi Chehade
>> (ICANN), Milton Mueller (GIGA  NET), Dr. Hamadoun Toure' (ITU), Avri
>> Doria, Vint Cerf (Google).
>>
>> Speaker invites will resume once we have a broader consensus on the
>> session format, and key policy questions.
> 
> All good folks most of whom we know will be there (Avri?s TBD) so
> probably we can count on them, but will still need confirmations.
> 
> The initial suggestion in April was to divide the event into two panels,
> a first of high-level leaders and then a second of stakeholders.  Since
> then two things have happened: a) as noted previously, the MAG decided
> several calls ago to revise the session to move in two stages, looking
> first at events in the larger ecosystem that have implications for the
> IGF and its role (org/process-specific, e.g. NETmundial & Alliance,
> WGEC, ITU, etc.,  and larger cross-cutting trends) and then second at
> how the IGF could adapt itself in respond to help fill the holes and
> meet the challenges, especially at a time when other, differently
> configured initiatives maybe be adding to a remapped space.  b) a number
> of people expressed concerns here about the utility of a ?leaders panel?
> on the grounds that it could end up defaulting to standard descriptions
> of each organizations? activities etc. rather than engaging those
> leaders in a more probing assessment of the ecosystem?s current state,
> challenges, future prospects, and choices that need to be made.
> 
> Accordingly, I would suggest we consider what the configuration the MAG
> endorsed might look like, building from the people already invited and
> the other options Subi suggested we consider.  Below is a first crack at
> that?
> 
> 
> *Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem*
> 
> Moderator: TBD
> 
> Panelists:
> 
>  1. Fadi Chehade (TC)  TBC
>  2. Hamadoun Toure? (IGO)  TBC
>  3. Milton Mueller (Civil society)  TBC
> 
> 
> *Panel 2: The Role of the IGF*
> 
> Moderator: TBD
> 
>  1. Avri Doria (CS) TBC
>  2. Kathy Brown (TC)  TBC
>  3. Vint Cerf (Private sector)
> 
> 
> This would be a good starting point, with people who each would have a
> lot to say on the specific topics.  We would need two to three more per
> panel.  (An aside: on Day Zero there will be a release event for a book
> I?m editing with 16 chapters by different people concerning
> implementation of the NETmundial Roadmap on institutions, which includes
> chapters on strengthening the IGF by Markus, Jeremy Malcolm, and Vint
> and Co., so having ISOC and Google on the second panel could build on
> that Day Zero discussion.  The book release will be part of a full day
> program on NM followup).
> 
> Subi also suggested as possibilities 
> 
>> > >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>> > >>> 4. ISOC- / Markus Kummer
>> > >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>> > >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>> > >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 1. Academia: Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>> > >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>> > >>> 3. Technical Community:  Byron Holland (CIRA)
>> > >>> 4. Private Sector:  Zahid Jamil
> 
> All good names we could consider.  There are of course many others we
> know will be in attendance would could add diversity in viewpoint and
> demographics.  I cannot get the list of provisional registrations to
> load http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list yields but just
> off the top of my head there?s:
> 
>   * Govt/IGO: Megan Richards, Larry Strickling and Fiona Alexander,
>     Olga, Alice, Towela, Mohammed AlQurashi, Benedicto or someone else
>     from BRICs...
>   * PS: Pate Kane, Phil Rushton, Jimson, Marilyn
>   * TC: Paul, Geoff Huston, Emily Taylor , Izumi Okutani, Adiel Akplogan  
>   * CS: Anriette Marilia Maciel, Jeremy Malcolm, Adam Peake
> 
> And many others people here could name...
> 
> Also, we had a self-nomination yesterday,
> 
>> Dear Subi Chaturvedi, Marilyn Cade!
>>
>> At the upcoming IGF I would like to speak at the workshop " Evolution
>> of the Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? Reaction to
>> NETmundial, CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora ." It's not a secret that the
>> current number of attempts to implement Internet regulation has
>> significantly increased. Some of them are aimed at achieving a real
>> consensus, while others are a frank imitation and an attempt to
>> preserve the existing situation of anarchy and confusion. I believe,
>> that issues dividing the outcome of such events should be raised in
>> this section.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Robert Shlegel
>>
> Personally, I would argue for including Larry Strickling and/or Megan
> Richards to bring out consequential US/EU views, and perhaps KSA or a
> similarly minded govt that has issues with the ecosystem that are worth
> airing.  I would also strongly consider Geoff Huston on the grounds that
> he?s invariably interesting and audiences always love his presentations.
>  And any of the CS people mentioned have been consistent voices for
> strengthening the IGF?
> 
> 
> Thoughts?  Can we work at filling in the empty slots?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:35 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Subi
>>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally
>>> been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format
>>> organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat
>>> have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where
>>> there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial
>>> remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of
>>> organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance
>>> and diversity in approach and opinion.
>>
>> I suspect many folks would agree that Town Hall with initial remarks
>> is a good format.  The questions to be sorted are:
>>
>> 1.  Number of initial remarkers:  4 minutes x your initial suggested
>> list of a dozen or more would make for quite a long period of the
>> audience being talked to before they get to participate.  One also
>> wonders whether Secretary Generals etc. will be happy to speak for
>> just 3-4 minutes, and how comfortable the moderator will be pushing
>> them to wrap it up if they go over.
>>
>> 2.  Composition of the group: I take your point that hearing some
>> 'established leaders? might not seem like ?old news? to many attendees
>> even if veterans find it a bit familiar.  It?s just a question of
>> balance, 7 being a lot.  Stakeholder voices are equally important, and
>> the group there needs to be inclusive of varying viewpoints and
>> demographics.
>>
>> 3.  Focus of ?leader? comments: I share Ana?s concern that asking
>> leaders to speak about what their organizations are doing could lead
>> to standard talking point explanations and defenses of their
>> activities.  We have seen this many many times in IGF main sessions
>> over the past decade, and with all due respect to the participants it
>> has been known to occasion impromptu coffee breaks and Facebook
>> checking.  Asking them to speak to larger developments, e.g. the state
>> of play and future prospects for the ?ecosystem,? would seem more
>> interesting.  I don?t know though about asking them to address
>> developments in each others? organizations, that seems a bit
>> diplomatically unusual and potentially uncomfortable.
>>
>> 4.  The distribution of topical foci and interventions over the three
>> hours:  Again, if we are going to have a discussion that moves from
>> external events and the implications for the IGF?s role to how the IGF
>> can respond in terms of strengthening its processes and filling gaps,
>> then the speakers/time slots need to be allocated across this narrative.
>>
>> 5.  Moderator(s): With this design and composition we?ll really need
>> experienced people who are clued into the issues and now how to keep a
>> discussion on track.  My suggestion would be one moderator for the
>> ecosystem developments piece and one for the IGF response piece, which
>> would be less exhausting for whomever and increase diversity.
>>
>> So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask
>> that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and
>> who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list,
>> which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We
>> cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two
>> people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are
>> reasons this has never been done before.  
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Bill
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ***********************************************
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 



From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Jul 18 10:37:26 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:37:26 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolu?=
 =?windows-1252?q?tion_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <53C909FD.70000@acm.org>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>
	<53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu>
	<53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<003E4F2D-72A2-47AF-897D-B0925FBCFCB8@gmail.com>
	<53C909FD.70000@acm.org>
Message-ID: <736BF084-7DCA-4108-9A7E-4227814176A1@gmail.com>

Thanks for letting us know Avri.  Don?t know how I forgot you were on the IANA panel, was just mailing with folks about that one yesterday.  Glad to hear you?re coming.

Well so we definitely need a CS person for the strengthening IGF bit.  I?d support Jeremy for that, as he?s a long-time advocate and will have just written a paper with ideas on the matter?

Also, I didn?t want to overly complicate the conversation but I guess we should also start thinking about moderators.  Two of the names we might want to consider there would be Jeanette Hofmann for CS and Sam Dickinson for the TC, both very tuned into the issues and good at managing discussions...

Bill

On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As much as I am interested in this topic and appreciate the invitation,
> I had told Subi, that I probably could not do this panel.
> 
> 1. I had already agreed to be on the panel for IANA transition and did
> not think being on two main session panels was the thing to do.
> 
> 2. while i assume the schedule is still somewhat flexible, as it
> currently stand I have an Open Forum and a DC in the same time slot I am
> expected to be at.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> BTW, at this point i have purchased the air ticket so expect i will be
> there, all thing being equal.
> 
> On 18-Jul-14 06:18, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> The secretariat has given us a deadline of 4 August to complete the main
>> sessions.  The others appear to be moving along nicely now, but the
>> ecosystem/Role of IGF session seems to be moving slowly.  With 31 minds
>> gathered on the dedicated working group list, surely we can brainstorm
>> this forward in the usual collaborative manner.
>> 
>> So what we now know is
>> 
>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> People reached out to thus far: Kathy Brown (ISOC), Fadi Chehade
>>> (ICANN), Milton Mueller (GIGA  NET), Dr. Hamadoun Toure' (ITU), Avri
>>> Doria, Vint Cerf (Google).
>>> 
>>> Speaker invites will resume once we have a broader consensus on the
>>> session format, and key policy questions.
>> 
>> All good folks most of whom we know will be there (Avri?s TBD) so
>> probably we can count on them, but will still need confirmations.
>> 
>> The initial suggestion in April was to divide the event into two panels,
>> a first of high-level leaders and then a second of stakeholders.  Since
>> then two things have happened: a) as noted previously, the MAG decided
>> several calls ago to revise the session to move in two stages, looking
>> first at events in the larger ecosystem that have implications for the
>> IGF and its role (org/process-specific, e.g. NETmundial & Alliance,
>> WGEC, ITU, etc.,  and larger cross-cutting trends) and then second at
>> how the IGF could adapt itself in respond to help fill the holes and
>> meet the challenges, especially at a time when other, differently
>> configured initiatives maybe be adding to a remapped space.  b) a number
>> of people expressed concerns here about the utility of a ?leaders panel?
>> on the grounds that it could end up defaulting to standard descriptions
>> of each organizations? activities etc. rather than engaging those
>> leaders in a more probing assessment of the ecosystem?s current state,
>> challenges, future prospects, and choices that need to be made.
>> 
>> Accordingly, I would suggest we consider what the configuration the MAG
>> endorsed might look like, building from the people already invited and
>> the other options Subi suggested we consider.  Below is a first crack at
>> that?
>> 
>> 
>> *Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem*
>> 
>> Moderator: TBD
>> 
>> Panelists:
>> 
>> 1. Fadi Chehade (TC)  TBC
>> 2. Hamadoun Toure? (IGO)  TBC
>> 3. Milton Mueller (Civil society)  TBC
>> 
>> 
>> *Panel 2: The Role of the IGF*
>> 
>> Moderator: TBD
>> 
>> 1. Avri Doria (CS) TBC
>> 2. Kathy Brown (TC)  TBC
>> 3. Vint Cerf (Private sector)
>> 
>> 
>> This would be a good starting point, with people who each would have a
>> lot to say on the specific topics.  We would need two to three more per
>> panel.  (An aside: on Day Zero there will be a release event for a book
>> I?m editing with 16 chapters by different people concerning
>> implementation of the NETmundial Roadmap on institutions, which includes
>> chapters on strengthening the IGF by Markus, Jeremy Malcolm, and Vint
>> and Co., so having ISOC and Google on the second panel could build on
>> that Day Zero discussion.  The book release will be part of a full day
>> program on NM followup).
>> 
>> Subi also suggested as possibilities 
>> 
>>>>>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>>>>>> 4. ISOC- / Markus Kummer
>>>>>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>>>>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>>>>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Academia: Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>>>>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>>>>>> 3. Technical Community:  Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>>>>>> 4. Private Sector:  Zahid Jamil
>> 
>> All good names we could consider.  There are of course many others we
>> know will be in attendance would could add diversity in viewpoint and
>> demographics.  I cannot get the list of provisional registrations to
>> load http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list yields but just
>> off the top of my head there?s:
>> 
>>  * Govt/IGO: Megan Richards, Larry Strickling and Fiona Alexander,
>>    Olga, Alice, Towela, Mohammed AlQurashi, Benedicto or someone else
>>    from BRICs...
>>  * PS: Pate Kane, Phil Rushton, Jimson, Marilyn
>>  * TC: Paul, Geoff Huston, Emily Taylor , Izumi Okutani, Adiel Akplogan  
>>  * CS: Anriette Marilia Maciel, Jeremy Malcolm, Adam Peake
>> 
>> And many others people here could name...
>> 
>> Also, we had a self-nomination yesterday,
>> 
>>> Dear Subi Chaturvedi, Marilyn Cade!
>>> 
>>> At the upcoming IGF I would like to speak at the workshop " Evolution
>>> of the Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? Reaction to
>>> NETmundial, CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora ." It's not a secret that the
>>> current number of attempts to implement Internet regulation has
>>> significantly increased. Some of them are aimed at achieving a real
>>> consensus, while others are a frank imitation and an attempt to
>>> preserve the existing situation of anarchy and confusion. I believe,
>>> that issues dividing the outcome of such events should be raised in
>>> this section.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Robert Shlegel
>>> 
>> Personally, I would argue for including Larry Strickling and/or Megan
>> Richards to bring out consequential US/EU views, and perhaps KSA or a
>> similarly minded govt that has issues with the ecosystem that are worth
>> airing.  I would also strongly consider Geoff Huston on the grounds that
>> he?s invariably interesting and audiences always love his presentations.
>> And any of the CS people mentioned have been consistent voices for
>> strengthening the IGF?
>> 
>> 
>> Thoughts?  Can we work at filling in the empty slots?
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:35 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Subi
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this.
>>> 
>>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally
>>>> been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format
>>>> organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat
>>>> have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where
>>>> there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial
>>>> remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of
>>>> organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance
>>>> and diversity in approach and opinion.
>>> 
>>> I suspect many folks would agree that Town Hall with initial remarks
>>> is a good format.  The questions to be sorted are:
>>> 
>>> 1.  Number of initial remarkers:  4 minutes x your initial suggested
>>> list of a dozen or more would make for quite a long period of the
>>> audience being talked to before they get to participate.  One also
>>> wonders whether Secretary Generals etc. will be happy to speak for
>>> just 3-4 minutes, and how comfortable the moderator will be pushing
>>> them to wrap it up if they go over.
>>> 
>>> 2.  Composition of the group: I take your point that hearing some
>>> 'established leaders? might not seem like ?old news? to many attendees
>>> even if veterans find it a bit familiar.  It?s just a question of
>>> balance, 7 being a lot.  Stakeholder voices are equally important, and
>>> the group there needs to be inclusive of varying viewpoints and
>>> demographics.
>>> 
>>> 3.  Focus of ?leader? comments: I share Ana?s concern that asking
>>> leaders to speak about what their organizations are doing could lead
>>> to standard talking point explanations and defenses of their
>>> activities.  We have seen this many many times in IGF main sessions
>>> over the past decade, and with all due respect to the participants it
>>> has been known to occasion impromptu coffee breaks and Facebook
>>> checking.  Asking them to speak to larger developments, e.g. the state
>>> of play and future prospects for the ?ecosystem,? would seem more
>>> interesting.  I don?t know though about asking them to address
>>> developments in each others? organizations, that seems a bit
>>> diplomatically unusual and potentially uncomfortable.
>>> 
>>> 4.  The distribution of topical foci and interventions over the three
>>> hours:  Again, if we are going to have a discussion that moves from
>>> external events and the implications for the IGF?s role to how the IGF
>>> can respond in terms of strengthening its processes and filling gaps,
>>> then the speakers/time slots need to be allocated across this narrative.
>>> 
>>> 5.  Moderator(s): With this design and composition we?ll really need
>>> experienced people who are clued into the issues and now how to keep a
>>> discussion on track.  My suggestion would be one moderator for the
>>> ecosystem developments piece and one for the IGF response piece, which
>>> would be less exhausting for whomever and increase diversity.
>>> 
>>> So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask
>>> that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and
>>> who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list,
>>> which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We
>>> cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two
>>> people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are
>>> reasons this has never been done before.  
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> Bill
>> 
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>> ***********************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org




From olgacavalli at gmail.com  Mon Jul 21 09:38:19 2014
From: olgacavalli at gmail.com (Olga Cavalli)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:38:19 -0300
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] =?utf-8?q?About_proposed_panelists_-__Next_Steps?=
	=?utf-8?q?=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosyst?=
	=?utf-8?q?em/Role_of_IGF_=E2=80=93_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CST?=
	=?utf-8?q?D=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
Message-ID: <CAPNZ5T4Bha+W=jNMtjvv6ZJ1KR6NhK0w1_u1ydg-JoS7ta203g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

A while ago I send two names as proposed panelists or participants to this
main session:

Dr Norberto Berner, Secretary of Communications of Argentina

Dr. Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias

I will welcome any feedback about their participation in the session, as
they have recieved no notification so far.

Best regards and many thanks
Olga
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140721/5554d640/attachment.htm>

From patrickryan at google.com  Tue Jul 22 14:58:13 2014
From: patrickryan at google.com (Patrick Ryan)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:58:13 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?About_proposed_panelists_-__Nex?=
 =?windows-1252?q?t_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=96_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CS?=
 =?windows-1252?q?TD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CAPNZ5T4Bha+W=jNMtjvv6ZJ1KR6NhK0w1_u1ydg-JoS7ta203g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPNZ5T4Bha+W=jNMtjvv6ZJ1KR6NhK0w1_u1ydg-JoS7ta203g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2E1A6BEC-86CF-4905-ACB1-FB0B66E800F9@google.com>

These are excellent suggestions.  How about someone from WEF?  I believe Danil Kerimi will be there and would be happy to make the connection if helpful.

Patrick

On Jul 21, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> A while ago I send two names as proposed panelists or participants to this main session:
> 
> Dr Norberto Berner, Secretary of Communications of Argentina
> 
> Dr. Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias
> 
> I will welcome any feedback about their participation in the session, as they have recieved no notification so far.
> 
> Best regards and many thanks
> Olga
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org




From ankhi at fb.com  Tue Jul 22 23:59:14 2014
From: ankhi at fb.com (Ankhi Das)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:59:14 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?About_proposed_panelists_-__Next_?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecos?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <2E1A6BEC-86CF-4905-ACB1-FB0B66E800F9@google.com>
References: <CAPNZ5T4Bha+W=jNMtjvv6ZJ1KR6NhK0w1_u1ydg-JoS7ta203g@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E1A6BEC-86CF-4905-ACB1-FB0B66E800F9@google.com>
Message-ID: <CFF530C6.2C8B7%ankhi@fb.com>

That would be a great addition Patrick. All excellent suggestions.

On 7/23/14, 12:28 AM, "Patrick Ryan" <patrickryan at google.com> wrote:

>These are excellent suggestions.  How about someone from WEF?  I believe
>Danil Kerimi will be there and would be happy to make the connection if
>helpful.
>
>Patrick
>
>On Jul 21, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> A while ago I send two names as proposed panelists or participants to
>>this main session:
>> 
>> Dr Norberto Berner, Secretary of Communications of Argentina
>> 
>> Dr. Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias
>> 
>> I will welcome any feedback about their participation in the session,
>>as they have recieved no notification so far.
>> 
>> Best regards and many thanks
>> Olga
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mail.intgovforum.org/ma
>>ilman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D
>>%3D%0A&r=hGcdOh7IQpB6GEYXozeoJg%3D%3D%0A&m=zkgM5pgId4O51GP8wwIdSusUF862mo
>>Rzp3YkGeHF0iI%3D%0A&s=93e0d6a5d763bca185cf4dd77cfacf8fce1a0d42d167c67f187
>>183612342f08f
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mail.intgovforum.org/mai
>lman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3
>D%0A&r=hGcdOh7IQpB6GEYXozeoJg%3D%3D%0A&m=zkgM5pgId4O51GP8wwIdSusUF862moRzp
>3YkGeHF0iI%3D%0A&s=93e0d6a5d763bca185cf4dd77cfacf8fce1a0d42d167c67f1871836
>12342f08f




From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Jul 23 03:55:13 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:55:13 +0900
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Next_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evoluti?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?on_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_=28Rea?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?=29?=
In-Reply-To: <736BF084-7DCA-4108-9A7E-4227814176A1@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org>
	<53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu>
	<53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<003E4F2D-72A2-47AF-897D-B0925FBCFCB8@gmail.com>
	<53C909FD.70000@acm.org>
	<736BF084-7DCA-4108-9A7E-4227814176A1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAA08BE3-F335-46B4-9B47-27EE5C72B6BF@glocom.ac.jp>

Is there a current outline of the session and topics to be discussed.  Looked through the list archives and nothing stood out <http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/>

If there is a NETmundial focus then I'd be happy to contribute. 

Adam


On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:37 PM, William Drake wrote:

> Thanks for letting us know Avri.  Don?t know how I forgot you were on the IANA panel, was just mailing with folks about that one yesterday.  Glad to hear you?re coming.
> 
> Well so we definitely need a CS person for the strengthening IGF bit.  I?d support Jeremy for that, as he?s a long-time advocate and will have just written a paper with ideas on the matter?
> 
> Also, I didn?t want to overly complicate the conversation but I guess we should also start thinking about moderators.  Two of the names we might want to consider there would be Jeanette Hofmann for CS and Sam Dickinson for the TC, both very tuned into the issues and good at managing discussions...
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As much as I am interested in this topic and appreciate the invitation,
>> I had told Subi, that I probably could not do this panel.
>> 
>> 1. I had already agreed to be on the panel for IANA transition and did
>> not think being on two main session panels was the thing to do.
>> 
>> 2. while i assume the schedule is still somewhat flexible, as it
>> currently stand I have an Open Forum and a DC in the same time slot I am
>> expected to be at.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> BTW, at this point i have purchased the air ticket so expect i will be
>> there, all thing being equal.
>> 
>> On 18-Jul-14 06:18, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> The secretariat has given us a deadline of 4 August to complete the main
>>> sessions.  The others appear to be moving along nicely now, but the
>>> ecosystem/Role of IGF session seems to be moving slowly.  With 31 minds
>>> gathered on the dedicated working group list, surely we can brainstorm
>>> this forward in the usual collaborative manner.
>>> 
>>> So what we now know is
>>> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> People reached out to thus far: Kathy Brown (ISOC), Fadi Chehade
>>>> (ICANN), Milton Mueller (GIGA  NET), Dr. Hamadoun Toure' (ITU), Avri
>>>> Doria, Vint Cerf (Google).
>>>> 
>>>> Speaker invites will resume once we have a broader consensus on the
>>>> session format, and key policy questions.
>>> 
>>> All good folks most of whom we know will be there (Avri?s TBD) so
>>> probably we can count on them, but will still need confirmations.
>>> 
>>> The initial suggestion in April was to divide the event into two panels,
>>> a first of high-level leaders and then a second of stakeholders.  Since
>>> then two things have happened: a) as noted previously, the MAG decided
>>> several calls ago to revise the session to move in two stages, looking
>>> first at events in the larger ecosystem that have implications for the
>>> IGF and its role (org/process-specific, e.g. NETmundial & Alliance,
>>> WGEC, ITU, etc.,  and larger cross-cutting trends) and then second at
>>> how the IGF could adapt itself in respond to help fill the holes and
>>> meet the challenges, especially at a time when other, differently
>>> configured initiatives maybe be adding to a remapped space.  b) a number
>>> of people expressed concerns here about the utility of a ?leaders panel?
>>> on the grounds that it could end up defaulting to standard descriptions
>>> of each organizations? activities etc. rather than engaging those
>>> leaders in a more probing assessment of the ecosystem?s current state,
>>> challenges, future prospects, and choices that need to be made.
>>> 
>>> Accordingly, I would suggest we consider what the configuration the MAG
>>> endorsed might look like, building from the people already invited and
>>> the other options Subi suggested we consider.  Below is a first crack at
>>> that?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem*
>>> 
>>> Moderator: TBD
>>> 
>>> Panelists:
>>> 
>>> 1. Fadi Chehade (TC)  TBC
>>> 2. Hamadoun Toure? (IGO)  TBC
>>> 3. Milton Mueller (Civil society)  TBC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Panel 2: The Role of the IGF*
>>> 
>>> Moderator: TBD
>>> 
>>> 1. Avri Doria (CS) TBC
>>> 2. Kathy Brown (TC)  TBC
>>> 3. Vint Cerf (Private sector)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This would be a good starting point, with people who each would have a
>>> lot to say on the specific topics.  We would need two to three more per
>>> panel.  (An aside: on Day Zero there will be a release event for a book
>>> I?m editing with 16 chapters by different people concerning
>>> implementation of the NETmundial Roadmap on institutions, which includes
>>> chapters on strengthening the IGF by Markus, Jeremy Malcolm, and Vint
>>> and Co., so having ISOC and Google on the second panel could build on
>>> that Day Zero discussion.  The book release will be part of a full day
>>> program on NM followup).
>>> 
>>> Subi also suggested as possibilities 
>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>>>>>>> 4. ISOC- / Markus Kummer
>>>>>>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>>>>>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>>>>>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1. Academia: Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
>>>>>>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>>>>>>> 3. Technical Community:  Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>>>>>>> 4. Private Sector:  Zahid Jamil
>>> 
>>> All good names we could consider.  There are of course many others we
>>> know will be in attendance would could add diversity in viewpoint and
>>> demographics.  I cannot get the list of provisional registrations to
>>> load http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/participants-list yields but just
>>> off the top of my head there?s:
>>> 
>>> * Govt/IGO: Megan Richards, Larry Strickling and Fiona Alexander,
>>>   Olga, Alice, Towela, Mohammed AlQurashi, Benedicto or someone else
>>>   from BRICs...
>>> * PS: Pate Kane, Phil Rushton, Jimson, Marilyn
>>> * TC: Paul, Geoff Huston, Emily Taylor , Izumi Okutani, Adiel Akplogan  
>>> * CS: Anriette Marilia Maciel, Jeremy Malcolm, Adam Peake
>>> 
>>> And many others people here could name...
>>> 
>>> Also, we had a self-nomination yesterday,
>>> 
>>>> Dear Subi Chaturvedi, Marilyn Cade!
>>>> 
>>>> At the upcoming IGF I would like to speak at the workshop " Evolution
>>>> of the Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ? Reaction to
>>>> NETmundial, CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora ." It's not a secret that the
>>>> current number of attempts to implement Internet regulation has
>>>> significantly increased. Some of them are aimed at achieving a real
>>>> consensus, while others are a frank imitation and an attempt to
>>>> preserve the existing situation of anarchy and confusion. I believe,
>>>> that issues dividing the outcome of such events should be raised in
>>>> this section.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Robert Shlegel
>>>> 
>>> Personally, I would argue for including Larry Strickling and/or Megan
>>> Richards to bring out consequential US/EU views, and perhaps KSA or a
>>> similarly minded govt that has issues with the ecosystem that are worth
>>> airing.  I would also strongly consider Geoff Huston on the grounds that
>>> he?s invariably interesting and audiences always love his presentations.
>>> And any of the CS people mentioned have been consistent voices for
>>> strengthening the IGF?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?  Can we work at filling in the empty slots?
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:35 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Subi
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for this.
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally
>>>>> been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format
>>>>> organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat
>>>>> have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where
>>>>> there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial
>>>>> remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of
>>>>> organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance
>>>>> and diversity in approach and opinion.
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect many folks would agree that Town Hall with initial remarks
>>>> is a good format.  The questions to be sorted are:
>>>> 
>>>> 1.  Number of initial remarkers:  4 minutes x your initial suggested
>>>> list of a dozen or more would make for quite a long period of the
>>>> audience being talked to before they get to participate.  One also
>>>> wonders whether Secretary Generals etc. will be happy to speak for
>>>> just 3-4 minutes, and how comfortable the moderator will be pushing
>>>> them to wrap it up if they go over.
>>>> 
>>>> 2.  Composition of the group: I take your point that hearing some
>>>> 'established leaders? might not seem like ?old news? to many attendees
>>>> even if veterans find it a bit familiar.  It?s just a question of
>>>> balance, 7 being a lot.  Stakeholder voices are equally important, and
>>>> the group there needs to be inclusive of varying viewpoints and
>>>> demographics.
>>>> 
>>>> 3.  Focus of ?leader? comments: I share Ana?s concern that asking
>>>> leaders to speak about what their organizations are doing could lead
>>>> to standard talking point explanations and defenses of their
>>>> activities.  We have seen this many many times in IGF main sessions
>>>> over the past decade, and with all due respect to the participants it
>>>> has been known to occasion impromptu coffee breaks and Facebook
>>>> checking.  Asking them to speak to larger developments, e.g. the state
>>>> of play and future prospects for the ?ecosystem,? would seem more
>>>> interesting.  I don?t know though about asking them to address
>>>> developments in each others? organizations, that seems a bit
>>>> diplomatically unusual and potentially uncomfortable.
>>>> 
>>>> 4.  The distribution of topical foci and interventions over the three
>>>> hours:  Again, if we are going to have a discussion that moves from
>>>> external events and the implications for the IGF?s role to how the IGF
>>>> can respond in terms of strengthening its processes and filling gaps,
>>>> then the speakers/time slots need to be allocated across this narrative.
>>>> 
>>>> 5.  Moderator(s): With this design and composition we?ll really need
>>>> experienced people who are clued into the issues and now how to keep a
>>>> discussion on track.  My suggestion would be one moderator for the
>>>> ecosystem developments piece and one for the IGF response piece, which
>>>> would be less exhausting for whomever and increase diversity.
>>>> 
>>>> So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask
>>>> that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and
>>>> who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list,
>>>> which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We
>>>> cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two
>>>> people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are
>>>> reasons this has never been done before.  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> ***********************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>>> ***********************************************
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org




From wjdrake at gmail.com  Wed Jul 23 05:08:31 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:08:31 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?windows-1252?q?About_proposed_panelists_-__Nex?=
 =?windows-1252?q?t_Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?Ecosystem/Role_of_IGF_=96_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CS?=
 =?windows-1252?q?TD=2C_WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <2E1A6BEC-86CF-4905-ACB1-FB0B66E800F9@google.com>
References: <CAPNZ5T4Bha+W=jNMtjvv6ZJ1KR6NhK0w1_u1ydg-JoS7ta203g@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E1A6BEC-86CF-4905-ACB1-FB0B66E800F9@google.com>
Message-ID: <03246887-E75F-4742-862E-B09B32E98A00@gmail.com>

Hi 

We need to move this along.  I?ve tried to pull names from previous messages, please tell me if I?ve missed anyone...

Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem

Moderator: TBD  

Panelists:

1. Fadi Chehade (ICANN)  [Invited, TBC]
2. Hamadoun Toure? (ITU)   [Invited, TBC]
3. Milton Mueller (Syracuse U.)   [Invited, TBC]

Panel 2: The Role of the IGF
 
1. Kathy Brown (ISOC)   [Invited, TBC]
2. Vint Cerf (Google)  [Invited, TBC]


Moderator options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now): 
Jeanette Hofmann (CS) 
Sam Dickinson (TC)

Panelist options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now): 

Government/IGO:
Norberto Berner (Argentina)
Benedicto Fonseca (Brazil)
Neelie Kroes or Megan Richards (EC)
Larry Strickling (US)
Ed Vaizy (UK)
Mohammed AlQurashi (KSA)
Alice Munyua (AU)
Private Sector:
Danil Kerimi (WEF)
Philipp Grabensee (Affilias)
Zahid Jamil (Jamil & Jamil)
Phil Rushton (BT)
Jimson Olufuye (WITSA) 
Technical Community:
Jari Arkko (IETF)
Tim Berners Lee (W3C)
Virgilio Almeida (Brazil/NM)
Byron Holland (CIRA)
Geoff Huston (APNIC)
Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC)
Civil Society:
Jeremy Malcolm (EFF)
Stephanie Perrin (UT)
Wolfgang Kleinw?chter (ICANN)
Nnenna Nwakanma (WWWF)
Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo)
Ron Deibert (Citizen Lab)
Marilia Maciel (FGV)
Adam Peake (Glocom)

If these are the names on the table so far, perhaps we could focus on who?d best fit on which panel to have a good balance of involved stakeholder views?  Probably we should also be mindful of who?s speaking on other main sessions so we don?t end up with the same people repeating to the exclusion of other voices etc?

Best

Bill



On Jul 22, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com> wrote:

> These are excellent suggestions.  How about someone from WEF?  I believe Danil Kerimi will be there and would be happy to make the connection if helpful.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> A while ago I send two names as proposed panelists or participants to this main session:
>> 
>> Dr Norberto Berner, Secretary of Communications of Argentina
>> 
>> Dr. Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias
>> 
>> I will welcome any feedback about their participation in the session, as they have recieved no notification so far.
>> 
>> Best regards and many thanks
>> Olga

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140723/a1c40f46/attachment.htm>

From bommelaer at isoc.org  Wed Jul 23 13:19:55 2014
From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:19:55 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?About_proposed_panelists_-__Next_?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Steps=3A_Way_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecos?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ystem/Role_of_IGF_=AD_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?WSIS=2C_ITU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <03246887-E75F-4742-862E-B09B32E98A00@gmail.com>
References: <CAPNZ5T4Bha+W=jNMtjvv6ZJ1KR6NhK0w1_u1ydg-JoS7ta203g@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E1A6BEC-86CF-4905-ACB1-FB0B66E800F9@google.com>
	<03246887-E75F-4742-862E-B09B32E98A00@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CFF5BB2C.3467D%bommelaer@isoc.org>

Hi Bill,

I can confirm Kathy Browns' participation.

Best,
Constance

From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:08 AM
To: Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com>>
Cc: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>" <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] About proposed panelists - Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF - (Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)

Hi

We need to move this along.  I've tried to pull names from previous messages, please tell me if I've missed anyone...

Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem

Moderator: TBD

Panelists:

1. Fadi Chehade (ICANN)  [Invited, TBC]
2. Hamadoun Toure' (ITU)   [Invited, TBC]
3. Milton Mueller (Syracuse U.)   [Invited, TBC]

Panel 2: The Role of the IGF

1. Kathy Brown (ISOC)   [Invited, TBC]
2. Vint Cerf (Google)  [Invited, TBC]


Moderator options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now):

  *   Jeanette Hofmann (CS)
  *   Sam Dickinson (TC)

Panelist options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now):

Government/IGO:

  *   Norberto Berner (Argentina)
  *   Benedicto Fonseca (Brazil)
  *   Neelie Kroes or Megan Richards (EC)
  *   Larry Strickling (US)
  *   Ed Vaizy (UK)
  *   Mohammed AlQurashi (KSA)
  *   Alice Munyua (AU)

Private Sector:

  *   Danil Kerimi (WEF)
  *   Philipp Grabensee (Affilias)
  *   Zahid Jamil (Jamil & Jamil)
  *   Phil Rushton (BT)
  *   Jimson Olufuye (WITSA)

Technical Community:

  *   Jari Arkko (IETF)
  *   Tim Berners Lee (W3C)
  *   Virgilio Almeida (Brazil/NM)
  *   Byron Holland (CIRA)
  *   Geoff Huston (APNIC)
  *   Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC)

Civil Society:

  *   Jeremy Malcolm (EFF)
  *   Stephanie Perrin (UT)
  *   Wolfgang Kleinw?chter (ICANN)
  *   Nnenna Nwakanma (WWWF)
  *   Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo)
  *   Ron Deibert (Citizen Lab)
  *   Marilia Maciel (FGV)
  *   Adam Peake (Glocom)

If these are the names on the table so far, perhaps we could focus on who'd best fit on which panel to have a good balance of involved stakeholder views?  Probably we should also be mindful of who's speaking on other main sessions so we don't end up with the same people repeating to the exclusion of other voices etc...

Best

Bill



On Jul 22, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com<mailto:patrickryan at google.com>> wrote:

These are excellent suggestions.  How about someone from WEF?  I believe Danil Kerimi will be there and would be happy to make the connection if helpful.

Patrick

On Jul 21, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

A while ago I send two names as proposed panelists or participants to this main session:

Dr Norberto Berner, Secretary of Communications of Argentina

Dr. Philipp Grabensee, Chairman of the Board of Afilias

I will welcome any feedback about their participation in the session, as they have recieved no notification so far.

Best regards and many thanks
Olga

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140723/59dcc066/attachment.htm>

From igor at ostrowski.waw.pl  Thu Jul 24 13:01:20 2014
From: igor at ostrowski.waw.pl (Igor Ostrowski)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:01:20 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BIGFmaglist=5D__Next_Steps=3A_W?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ay_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?_of_IGF_=AD_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_IT?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?U=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A7FCBB48-FAD5-42A2-BA8A-E63C3D423382@ostrowski.waw.pl>

Dear Bill,

I just got back from a holiday break and wanted to suggest to invite Rafa? Trzaskowski, our Minister of Administration and Digitization in Poland to attend the session. I thought it may be interesting for the audience to listen to a government's perspective and understand reasons behind their decision to support the evolution of the IG ecosystem. If you all agree, I'm happy to persuade him to come.  As you probably know Min. Trzaskowski played a very active role at netMundial, he pushed for creation of the multistakeholder Council in Poland (which I mentioned in my previous message) and is now working on the launch of the Polish IGF.  I attach some information on the Polish position on matters essential to the evolution of the ecosystem.

Best
Igor







On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:38 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Third request
> 
> On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:35 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list, which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two people knowing who?s been invited or has accepted, and there are reasons this has never been done before.  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Poland?s food for thought on Internet governance aspects in the pre-Sao Paulo discussions.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PL comments on EC fiches on IANA and ICANN globalization.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16870 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Polish engagement and support for multistakeholder model of the Internet governance.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 23903 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment-0003.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft NETmundial outcome statement with Polish comments.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 87552 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment-0004.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Polish comments on IANA transition process.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13988 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140724/64dfafe5/attachment-0005.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Jul 25 05:00:42 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:00:42 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BIGFmaglist=5D__Next_Steps=3A_W?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?ay_Forward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?_of_IGF_=AD_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_IT?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?U=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <A7FCBB48-FAD5-42A2-BA8A-E63C3D423382@ostrowski.waw.pl>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>
	<A7FCBB48-FAD5-42A2-BA8A-E63C3D423382@ostrowski.waw.pl>
Message-ID: <A1FDB6D2-0400-4DFF-876A-F5589F6FB3AD@gmail.com>

Hi

On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Igor Ostrowski <igor at ostrowski.waw.pl> wrote:

> Dear Bill,
> 
> I just got back from a holiday break and wanted to suggest to invite Rafa? Trzaskowski, our Minister of Administration and Digitization in Poland to attend the session.

Thanks Igor for this interesting suggestion.  So the revised list of options the group should be discussing is below.

Best

Bill
-------------

Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem

Moderator: TBD  

Panelists:

1. Fadi Chehade (ICANN)  [Invited, TBC]
2. Hamadoun Toure? (ITU)   [Invited, TBC]
3. Milton Mueller (Syracuse U.)   [Invited, TBC]

Panel 2: The Role of the IGF
 
1. Kathy Brown (ISOC)   [Confirmed]
2. Vint Cerf (Google)  [Invited, TBC]


Moderator options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now): 
Jeanette Hofmann (CS) 
Sam Dickinson (TC)

Panelist options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now): 

Government/IGO:
Rafa? Trzaskowski (Poland)
Norberto Berner (Argentina)
Benedicto Fonseca (Brazil)
Neelie Kroes or Megan Richards (EC)
Larry Strickling (US)
Ed Vaizy (UK)
Mohammed AlQurashi (KSA)
Alice Munyua (AU)
Private Sector:
Danil Kerimi (WEF)
Philipp Grabensee (Affilias)
Zahid Jamil (Jamil & Jamil)
Phil Rushton (BT)
Jimson Olufuye (WITSA) 
Technical Community:
Jari Arkko (IETF)
Tim Berners Lee (W3C)
Virgilio Almeida (Brazil/NM)
Byron Holland (CIRA)
Geoff Huston (APNIC)
Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC)
Civil Society:
Jeremy Malcolm (EFF)
Stephanie Perrin (UT)
Wolfgang Kleinw?chter (ICANN)
Nnenna Nwakanma (WWWF)
Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo)
Ron Deibert (Citizen Lab)
Marilia Maciel (FGV)
Adam Peake (Glocom)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140725/98eb5657/attachment.htm>

From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 04:29:19 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:59:19 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG Ecosystem-Update
Message-ID: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their
availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.

Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's
participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out
previously.

There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus
have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance,
Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on the
call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross stakeholder
groups and some names for moderators to choose from.

All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.

Your inputs have been most conducive.

Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy
questions.

Suggestions pertaining to :
1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time for
participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
2. Format:
A-no moderator
B-4 moderators
C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt 40
minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each of the
two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience
interventions only
E. A roundtable with concentric circles
D. An open space

3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
(We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have
been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting speakers
can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block their calenders)
(Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.  So
we have them too.
Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.

4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth
volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to
nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet
values will have some.

Any other inputs.

If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact Ms.
Marilyn Cade to join in.

We'll be updating the list soon.

Regards

Subi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140730/7c77c26d/attachment.htm>

From baher.esmat at icann.org  Wed Jul 30 04:37:08 2014
From: baher.esmat at icann.org (Baher Esmat)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:37:08 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG
 Ecosystem-Update
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21A76B18-BBD5-4700-92A6-594EABB61783@icann.org>

Fadi Chehade, ICANN CEO has confirmed too.

Best
Baher

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:


Dear All,

Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.

Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out previously.

There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance, Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on the call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross stakeholder groups and some names for moderators to choose from.

All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.

Your inputs have been most conducive.

Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy questions.

Suggestions pertaining to :
1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time for participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
2. Format:
A-no moderator
B-4 moderators
C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt 40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each of the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience interventions only
E. A roundtable with concentric circles
D. An open space

3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
(We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting speakers can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block their calenders)
(Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.  So we have them too.
Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.

4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet values will have some.

Any other inputs.

If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.

We'll be updating the list soon.

Regards

Subi

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140730/48923da7/attachment.htm>

From igor at ostrowski.waw.pl  Wed Jul 30 06:10:55 2014
From: igor at ostrowski.waw.pl (Igor Ostrowski)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:10:55 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of
	IG Ecosystem-Update
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D1B814C2-47CB-4493-9909-6BCF189BF703@ostrowski.waw.pl>

Dear All,

Rafa? Traskowski - Gov Stakeholder Group (PL Minister of Administration and Digitization) hs confirmed his availability as well 

Best
Igor


On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
> And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.
> 
> Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out previously.
> 
> There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance, Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on the call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross stakeholder groups and some names for moderators to choose from.
> 
> All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.
> 
> Your inputs have been most conducive.
> 
> Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy questions.
> 
> Suggestions pertaining to :
> 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time for participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators. 
> 2. Format:
> A-no moderator
> B-4 moderators
> C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt 40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each of the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
> D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience interventions only
> E. A roundtable with concentric circles
> D. An open space
> 
> 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
> (We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting speakers can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block their calenders)
> (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.  So we have them too.
> Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
> 
> 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet values will have some.
> Any other inputs.
> 
> If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
> 
> We'll be updating the list soon.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Subi
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140730/569ef391/attachment.htm>

From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 08:06:44 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:36:44 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of
	IG Ecosystem-Update
In-Reply-To: <D1B814C2-47CB-4493-9909-6BCF189BF703@ostrowski.waw.pl>
References: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D1B814C2-47CB-4493-9909-6BCF189BF703@ostrowski.waw.pl>
Message-ID: <CANRKRp+CYHxO1C5SKBFo2fS7cfp3zYUndD+JiCu8fyB_AWdQmg@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks Igor.

Pls share a brief profile and email co-ordinates.

Collecting it for all the speakers.

Regards

Subi


On 30 Jul 2014 15:40, "Igor Ostrowski" <igor at ostrowski.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Rafa? Traskowski - Gov Stakeholder Group (PL Minister of Administration
and Digitization) hs confirmed his availability as well
>
> Best
> Igor
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
>> And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their
availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.
>>
>> Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's
participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out
previously.
>>
>> There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus
have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance,
Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on the
call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross stakeholder
groups and some names for moderators to choose from.
>>
>> All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.
>>
>> Your inputs have been most conducive.
>>
>> Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy
questions.
>>
>> Suggestions pertaining to :
>> 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time
for participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
>> 2. Format:
>> A-no moderator
>> B-4 moderators
>> C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt
40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each of
the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
>> D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience
interventions only
>> E. A roundtable with concentric circles
>> D. An open space
>>
>> 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
>> (We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have
been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting speakers
can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block their calenders)
>> (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.
So we have them too.
>> Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
>>
>> 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth
volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to
nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet
values will have some.
>>
>> Any other inputs.
>>
>> If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact
Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
>>
>> We'll be updating the list soon.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Subi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140730/78c42002/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Jul 30 12:12:24 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:12:24 +0200
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG
	Ecosystem-Update
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D91968.6020104@acm.org>

Hi,

I have a basic question as I have been following this somewhat but
relativelyonly in the background.

Is this a session about the IG ecosystem at large or is this the one
about specific ways in which to make the IGF an active and functional
forum?  I had thought that after a bit of discussion there had been a
decision to devote at least one discussion main session to ways in which
the IGF could become more outcome oriented; a session that took the
lessons learned from the milestone event the NETMundial and applied them
to the IGF as a continuous forum.  This was a session I was happy to see
added and one that I think is critical to IGF having a basis to continue
to exist.

Forgive me if I am on the wrong list, but while discussion of the
ecosystem are all the rage these days, they do not directly address the
issue of how to fix the IGF.   And it desperately needs a major overhaul.

I am not sure I can make your upcoming call, and as I admit, I may be on
the wrong list.  I do like the idea of have 0 panelists and just floor
participation moderated by one or two individuals.  I think part of the
problem with main sessions is not that there are too many workshops as
some argue, but that they are dull repetitions of the same ole' talking
heads talking.   For many IGF panels, all one has to do is go back to
the recording of the previous year, to hear 80% of what is going to be
said this year.  An exciting and new format would be a real win.

avri


On 30-Jul-14 10:29, Subi Chaturvedi wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
> And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their
> availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.
> 
> Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's
> participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out
> previously.
> 
> There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus
> have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance,
> Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on
> the call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross
> stakeholder groups and some names for moderators to choose from.
> 
> All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.
> 
> Your inputs have been most conducive.
> 
> Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy
> questions.
> 
> Suggestions pertaining to :
> 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time
> for participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
> 2. Format:
> A-no moderator
> B-4 moderators
> C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt
> 40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each
> of the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
> D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience
> interventions only
> E. A roundtable with concentric circles
> D. An open space
> 
> 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
> (We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have
> been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting
> speakers can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block
> their calenders)
> (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations. 
> So we have them too.
> Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
> 
> 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth
> volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to
> nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet
> values will have some.
> 
> Any other inputs.
> 
> If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact
> Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
> 
> We'll be updating the list soon.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Subi
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 



From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 14:35:30 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:05:30 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG
	Ecosystem-Update
In-Reply-To: <53D91968.6020104@acm.org>
References: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D91968.6020104@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CANRKRpLGEiNCZo7VWaH14J98zs3i_C9g-j2Yvk2F6zs6g2iSaA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Avri.

Right list.

We proposed and agreed to have both on this one. The first 90 mins to be
used for IGF and other processes Including but not limited to Netmundial,
WSIS etc. Outlining the IG ecosystem but also specifics of what it entails
for IGF and the future.

And the second 90 minute slot out of a total of 3 hours for this main for
implementable, solutions for Strengthening the IGF, ground up including
outcomes, capacity etc.

Found this on the new link that Markus just shared about ISOC's initiative
to support IGF.
Looks like a workable description of goals and outcomes of what we do and
what we can be.. Both possibilities and limits and Opps

"the IGF:
-While there is no negotiated outcome of the meeting, the IGF informs and
inspires those with policy-making power. At the annual meeting delegates
discuss, exchange information and share good practices with each other.

-Assists in helping people understand how to maximize Internet
opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise.

-Is also a space that gives developing countries the same opportunities as
wealthier nations to engage in the debate on Internet governance.
Ultimately, the involvement of all stakeholders, from developed as well as
developing countries, is necessary for the future development of the
Internet."

With substantive inputs from various global processes and initiatives like
Netmundial and WGEC, we hope this 3 hr session will reveraberate, lean in,
listen and deliver.

*Hopefully, with time for about 80 identified speaking slots if we limit
the interventions to a min each between both the sessions(3 hrs).*

However speakers or heads of organisations with new voices too, from
accross stakeholder groups may be given slots of about 3 mins each for
their interventions. They might function as the glue which may keep gently
nudging the discussion forward as relevant interludes.

I still hope that we can buck most trends if not all. And despite your
previous commitment to the the IANA session I hope that you will make time
for an intervention on this one too.

We need more women in tech and IG and certainly more voices from the
technical community and ones like yours with the ability to integrate the
ethos would be a valuable addition to the session.

Proposed/Suggested Format: with two moderators/facilitators



?

Add: Session Rapporteurs and remote moderators here and attached.

Regards

Subi



On 30 Jul 2014 21:42, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a basic question as I have been following this somewhat but
> relativelyonly in the background.
>
> Is this a session about the IG ecosystem at large or is this the one
> about specific ways in which to make the IGF an active and functional
> forum?  I had thought that after a bit of discussion there had been a
> decision to devote at least one discussion main session to ways in which
> the IGF could become more outcome oriented; a session that took the
> lessons learned from the milestone event the NETMundial and applied them
> to the IGF as a continuous forum.  This was a session I was happy to see
> added and one that I think is critical to IGF having a basis to continue
> to exist.
>
> Forgive me if I am on the wrong list, but while discussion of the
> ecosystem are all the rage these days, they do not directly address the
> issue of how to fix the IGF.   And it desperately needs a major overhaul.
>
> I am not sure I can make your upcoming call, and as I admit, I may be on
> the wrong list.  I do like the idea of have 0 panelists and just floor
> participation moderated by one or two individuals.  I think part of the
> problem with main sessions is not that there are too many workshops as
> some argue, but that they are dull repetitions of the same ole' talking
> heads talking.   For many IGF panels, all one has to do is go back to
> the recording of the previous year, to hear 80% of what is going to be
> said this year.  An exciting and new format would be a real win.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 30-Jul-14 10:29, Subi Chaturvedi wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
> > And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their
> > availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical
Community.
> >
> > Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's
> > participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out
> > previously.
> >
> > There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus
> > have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance,
> > Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on
> > the call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross
> > stakeholder groups and some names for moderators to choose from.
> >
> > All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.
> >
> > Your inputs have been most conducive.
> >
> > Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy
> > questions.
> >
> > Suggestions pertaining to :
> > 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time
> > for participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
> > 2. Format:
> > A-no moderator
> > B-4 moderators
> > C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt
> > 40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each
> > of the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
> > D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience
> > interventions only
> > E. A roundtable with concentric circles
> > D. An open space
> >
> > 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
> > (We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have
> > been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting
> > speakers can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block
> > their calenders)
> > (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.
> > So we have them too.
> > Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
> >
> > 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth
> > volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to
> > nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet
> > values will have some.
> >
> > Any other inputs.
> >
> > If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact
> > Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
> >
> > We'll be updating the list soon.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Subi
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> > Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> >
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140731/e35af935/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Townhall IGF MAIN Role of IGF and IG Evol Format.png
Type: image/png
Size: 407397 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140731/e35af935/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: townhall.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 100320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140731/e35af935/attachment.jpg>

From karklinsj at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 15:52:38 2014
From: karklinsj at gmail.com (karklinsj at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:52:38 +0000
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
 =?utf-8?q?=5BIGFmaglist=5D__IGF_Main_Session_-_E?=
 =?utf-8?q?volution_of_IG_Ecosystem-Update?=
In-Reply-To: <CANRKRpLGEiNCZo7VWaH14J98zs3i_C9g-j2Yvk2F6zs6g2iSaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D91968.6020104@acm.org>,
	<CANRKRpLGEiNCZo7VWaH14J98zs3i_C9g-j2Yvk2F6zs6g2iSaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53d95060.67a8700a.0aa0.2e93@mx.google.com>

Subi
Thank you for sharing information and your thoughts.

I would like to inform you that I have been approached by the World Economic Forum who is launching the NetMundial initiative in support of the IGF and bringing the IG issues at the Davos annual meeting of the WEF. The presentation of the initiative is set for 28 August in GVA at the WEF HQ. 

Without interfering in the process of preparation of the ?IGF evolution? session I just wanted to indicate that EVOLINTGOV seems the right place where this initiative could be briefly presented as a new advocacy initiative. If you re agreeable I could put you in touch with Alan Marcus, Head of IT industries at the WEF, for further discussions.

Best regards

JK






Sent from Surface





From: Subi Chaturvedi
Sent: ?Wednesday?, ?July? ?30?, ?2014 ?9?:?35? ?PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org, evolintgov2014






Thanks Avri.

Right list.

We proposed and agreed to have both on this one. The first 90 mins to be used for IGF and other processes Including but not limited to Netmundial,  WSIS etc. Outlining the IG ecosystem but also specifics of what it entails for IGF and the future.

And the second 90 minute slot out of a total of 3 hours for this main for implementable, solutions for Strengthening the IGF, ground up including outcomes, capacity etc.

Found this on the new link that Markus just shared about ISOC's initiative to support IGF.
Looks like a workable description of goals and outcomes of what we do and what we can be.. Both possibilities and limits and Opps

"the IGF:
-While there is no negotiated outcome of the meeting, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy-making power. At the annual meeting delegates discuss, exchange information and share good practices with each other.


-Assists in helping people understand how to maximize Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise.

-Is also a space that gives developing countries the same opportunities as wealthier nations to engage in the debate on Internet governance.  Ultimately, the involvement of all stakeholders, from developed as well as developing countries, is necessary for the future development of the Internet."

With substantive inputs from various global processes and initiatives like Netmundial and WGEC, we hope this 3 hr session will reveraberate, lean in, listen and deliver.

Hopefully, with time for about 80 identified speaking slots if we limit the interventions to a min each between both the sessions(3 hrs).

However speakers or heads of organisations with new voices too, from accross stakeholder groups may be given slots of about 3 mins each for their interventions. They might function as the glue which may keep gently nudging the discussion forward as relevant interludes.

I still hope that we can buck most trends if not all. And despite your previous commitment to the the IANA session I hope that you will make time for an intervention on this one too.

We need more women in tech and IG and certainly more voices from the technical community and ones like yours with the ability to integrate the ethos would be a valuable addition to the session.

Proposed/Suggested Format: with two moderators/facilitators





 

?


Add: Session Rapporteurs and remote moderators here and attached.


Regards


Subi







On 30 Jul 2014 21:42, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a basic question as I have been following this somewhat but
> relativelyonly in the background.
>
> Is this a session about the IG ecosystem at large or is this the one
> about specific ways in which to make the IGF an active and functional
> forum?  I had thought that after a bit of discussion there had been a
> decision to devote at least one discussion main session to ways in which
> the IGF could become more outcome oriented; a session that took the
> lessons learned from the milestone event the NETMundial and applied them
> to the IGF as a continuous forum.  This was a session I was happy to see
> added and one that I think is critical to IGF having a basis to continue
> to exist.
>
> Forgive me if I am on the wrong list, but while discussion of the
> ecosystem are all the rage these days, they do not directly address the
> issue of how to fix the IGF.   And it desperately needs a major overhaul.
>
> I am not sure I can make your upcoming call, and as I admit, I may be on
> the wrong list.  I do like the idea of have 0 panelists and just floor
> participation moderated by one or two individuals.  I think part of the
> problem with main sessions is not that there are too many workshops as
> some argue, but that they are dull repetitions of the same ole' talking
> heads talking.   For many IGF panels, all one has to do is go back to
> the recording of the previous year, to hear 80% of what is going to be
> said this year.  An exciting and new format would be a real win.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 30-Jul-14 10:29, Subi Chaturvedi wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
> > And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their
> > availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.
> >
> > Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's
> > participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out
> > previously.
> >
> > There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus
> > have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance,
> > Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on
> > the call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross
> > stakeholder groups and some names for moderators to choose from.
> >
> > All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.
> >
> > Your inputs have been most conducive.
> >
> > Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy
> > questions.
> >
> > Suggestions pertaining to :
> > 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time
> > for participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
> > 2. Format:
> > A-no moderator
> > B-4 moderators
> > C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt
> > 40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each
> > of the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
> > D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience
> > interventions only
> > E. A roundtable with concentric circles
> > D. An open space
> >
> > 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
> > (We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have
> > been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting
> > speakers can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block
> > their calenders)
> > (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.
> > So we have them too.
> > Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
> >
> > 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth
> > volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to
> > nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet
> > values will have some.
> >
> > Any other inputs.
> >
> > If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact
> > Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
> >
> > We'll be updating the list soon.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Subi
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> > Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140730/89b4b56e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Townhall IGF MAIN Role of IGF and IG Evol Format.png
Type: image/png
Size: 407397 bytes
Desc: Townhall IGF MAIN Role of IGF and IG Evol Format.png
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140730/89b4b56e/attachment.png>

From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 00:25:34 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:55:34 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of
	IG Ecosystem-Update
In-Reply-To: <53d95060.67a8700a.0aa0.2e93@mx.google.com>
References: <CANRKRpLTfGk4iQdPhKBOPCiAYXJkEx8pP=pbevzEcALUpZ0ymA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D91968.6020104@acm.org>
	<CANRKRpLGEiNCZo7VWaH14J98zs3i_C9g-j2Yvk2F6zs6g2iSaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53d95060.67a8700a.0aa0.2e93@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <CANRKRpKtq6qvjusVuEa9unruXOmLo5KYq9cO32QSE328hMDy3A@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Janis. Sounds great.

Agree completely, will await your communication to take this further.

warmest

Subi
----




On 31 July 2014 01:22, <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Subi
> Thank you for sharing information and your thoughts.
> I would like to inform you that I have been approached by the World
> Economic Forum who is launching the NetMundial initiative in support of the
> IGF and bringing the IG issues at the Davos annual meeting of the WEF.
> The presentation of the initiative is set for 28 August in GVA at the WEF
> HQ.
> Without interfering in the process of preparation of the ?IGF evolution?
> session I just wanted to indicate that EVOLINTGOV seems the right place
> where this initiative could be briefly presented as a new advocacy
> initiative. If you re agreeable I could put you in touch with Alan Marcus,
> Head of IT industries at the WEF, for further discussions.
> Best regards
> JK
>
> Sent from Surface
>
> *From:* Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* ?Wednesday?, ?July? ?30?, ?2014 ?9?:?35? ?PM
> *To:* Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> *Cc:* igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>,
> evolintgov2014 <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
> Thanks Avri.
>
> Right list.
>
> We proposed and agreed to have both on this one. The first 90 mins to be
> used for IGF and other processes Including but not limited to Netmundial,
> WSIS etc. Outlining the IG ecosystem but also specifics of what it entails
> for IGF and the future.
>
> And the second 90 minute slot out of a total of 3 hours for this main for
> implementable, solutions for Strengthening the IGF, ground up including
> outcomes, capacity etc.
>
> Found this on the new link that Markus just shared about ISOC's initiative
> to support IGF.
> Looks like a workable description of goals and outcomes of what we do and
> what we can be.. Both possibilities and limits and Opps
>
> "the IGF:
> -While there is no negotiated outcome of the meeting, the IGF informs and
> inspires those with policy-making power. At the annual meeting delegates
> discuss, exchange information and share good practices with each other.
>
> -Assists in helping people understand how to maximize Internet
> opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise.
>
> -Is also a space that gives developing countries the same opportunities as
> wealthier nations to engage in the debate on Internet governance.
> Ultimately, the involvement of all stakeholders, from developed as well as
> developing countries, is necessary for the future development of the
> Internet."
>
> With substantive inputs from various global processes and initiatives like
> Netmundial and WGEC, we hope this 3 hr session will reveraberate, lean in,
> listen and deliver.
>
> *Hopefully, with time for about 80 identified speaking slots if we limit
> the interventions to a min each between both the sessions(3 hrs).*
>
> However speakers or heads of organisations with new voices too, from
> accross stakeholder groups may be given slots of about 3 mins each for
> their interventions. They might function as the glue which may keep gently
> nudging the discussion forward as relevant interludes.
>
> I still hope that we can buck most trends if not all. And despite your
> previous commitment to the the IANA session I hope that you will make time
> for an intervention on this one too.
>
> We need more women in tech and IG and certainly more voices from the
> technical community and ones like yours with the ability to integrate the
> ethos would be a valuable addition to the session.
>
> Proposed/Suggested Format: with two moderators/facilitators
>
>
>
> ?
>
> Add: Session Rapporteurs and remote moderators here and attached.
>
> Regards
>
> Subi
>
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2014 21:42, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a basic question as I have been following this somewhat but
> > relativelyonly in the background.
> >
> > Is this a session about the IG ecosystem at large or is this the one
> > about specific ways in which to make the IGF an active and functional
> > forum?  I had thought that after a bit of discussion there had been a
> > decision to devote at least one discussion main session to ways in which
> > the IGF could become more outcome oriented; a session that took the
> > lessons learned from the milestone event the NETMundial and applied them
> > to the IGF as a continuous forum.  This was a session I was happy to see
> > added and one that I think is critical to IGF having a basis to continue
> > to exist.
> >
> > Forgive me if I am on the wrong list, but while discussion of the
> > ecosystem are all the rage these days, they do not directly address the
> > issue of how to fix the IGF.   And it desperately needs a major overhaul.
> >
> > I am not sure I can make your upcoming call, and as I admit, I may be on
> > the wrong list.  I do like the idea of have 0 panelists and just floor
> > participation moderated by one or two individuals.  I think part of the
> > problem with main sessions is not that there are too many workshops as
> > some argue, but that they are dull repetitions of the same ole' talking
> > heads talking.   For many IGF panels, all one has to do is go back to
> > the recording of the previous year, to hear 80% of what is going to be
> > said this year.  An exciting and new format would be a real win.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 30-Jul-14 10:29, Subi Chaturvedi wrote:
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
> > > And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their
> > > availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical
> Community.
> > >
> > > Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's
> > > participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out
> > > previously.
> > >
> > > There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus
> > > have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance,
> > > Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on
> > > the call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross
> > > stakeholder groups and some names for moderators to choose from.
> > >
> > > All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.
> > >
> > > Your inputs have been most conducive.
> > >
> > > Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy
> > > questions.
> > >
> > > Suggestions pertaining to :
> > > 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time
> > > for participation and interventions from the floor and non
> facilitators.
> > > 2. Format:
> > > A-no moderator
> > > B-4 moderators
> > > C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt
> > > 40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each
> > > of the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
> > > D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience
> > > interventions only
> > > E. A roundtable with concentric circles
> > > D. An open space
> > >
> > > 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
> > > (We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have
> > > been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting
> > > speakers can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block
> > > their calenders)
> > > (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.
> > > So we have them too.
> > > Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
> > >
> > > 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth
> > > volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to
> > > nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet
> > > values will have some.
> > >
> > > Any other inputs.
> > >
> > > If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact
> > > Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
> > >
> > > We'll be updating the list soon.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Subi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> > > Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> > >
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> > Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> >
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> .
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140731/c7716568/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Townhall IGF MAIN Role of IGF and IG Evol Format.png
Type: image/png
Size: 407397 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140731/c7716568/attachment.png>

From marilynscade at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 30 18:53:02 2014
From: marilynscade at hotmail.com (Marilyn Cade)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:53:02 -0400
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of
	IG Ecosystem-Update
Message-ID: <BAY406-EAS427BD82D4EBA69D473F81D2D3F90@phx.gbl>


Thanks, Janis. Yes. We will discuss including along with our other relevant topics.ask Asn to email Subi and me and we can discuss. 

Thanks 
Marilyn
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 30, 2014, at 16:07, karklinsj at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Subi
> Thank you for sharing information and your thoughts.
> 
> I would like to inform you that I have been approached by the World Economic Forum who is launching the NetMundial initiative in support of the IGF and bringing the IG issues at the Davos annual meeting of the WEF. The presentation of the initiative is set for 28 August in GVA at the WEF HQ. 
> 
> Without interfering in the process of preparation of the ?IGF evolution? session I just wanted to indicate that EVOLINTGOV seems the right place where this initiative could be briefly presented as a new advocacy initiative. If you re agreeable I could put you in touch with Alan Marcus, Head of IT industries at the WEF, for further discussions.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> JK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Surface
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Subi Chaturvedi
> Sent: ?Wednesday?, ?July? ?30?, ?2014 ?9?:?35? ?PM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org, evolintgov2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Avri.
> 
> Right list.
> 
> We proposed and agreed to have both on this one. The first 90 mins to be used for IGF and other processes Including but not limited to Netmundial,  WSIS etc. Outlining the IG ecosystem but also specifics of what it entails for IGF and the future.
> 
> And the second 90 minute slot out of a total of 3 hours for this main for implementable, solutions for Strengthening the IGF, ground up including outcomes, capacity etc.
> 
> Found this on the new link that Markus just shared about ISOC's initiative to support IGF.
> Looks like a workable description of goals and outcomes of what we do and what we can be.. Both possibilities and limits and Opps
> 
> "the IGF:
> -While there is no negotiated outcome of the meeting, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy-making power. At the annual meeting delegates discuss, exchange information and share good practices with each other.
> 
> 
> -Assists in helping people understand how to maximize Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise.
> 
> -Is also a space that gives developing countries the same opportunities as wealthier nations to engage in the debate on Internet governance.  Ultimately, the involvement of all stakeholders, from developed as well as developing countries, is necessary for the future development of the Internet."
> 
> With substantive inputs from various global processes and initiatives like Netmundial and WGEC, we hope this 3 hr session will reveraberate, lean in, listen and deliver.
> 
> Hopefully, with time for about 80 identified speaking slots if we limit the interventions to a min each between both the sessions(3 hrs).
> 
> However speakers or heads of organisations with new voices too, from accross stakeholder groups may be given slots of about 3 mins each for their interventions. They might function as the glue which may keep gently nudging the discussion forward as relevant interludes.
> 
> I still hope that we can buck most trends if not all. And despite your previous commitment to the the IANA session I hope that you will make time for an intervention on this one too.
> 
> We need more women in tech and IG and certainly more voices from the technical community and ones like yours with the ability to integrate the ethos would be a valuable addition to the session.
> 
> Proposed/Suggested Format: with two moderators/facilitators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> Add: Session Rapporteurs and remote moderators here and attached.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Subi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 Jul 2014 21:42, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have a basic question as I have been following this somewhat but
>> relativelyonly in the background.
>> 
>> Is this a session about the IG ecosystem at large or is this the one
>> about specific ways in which to make the IGF an active and functional
>> forum?  I had thought that after a bit of discussion there had been a
>> decision to devote at least one discussion main session to ways in which
>> the IGF could become more outcome oriented; a session that took the
>> lessons learned from the milestone event the NETMundial and applied them
>> to the IGF as a continuous forum.  This was a session I was happy to see
>> added and one that I think is critical to IGF having a basis to continue
>> to exist.
>> 
>> Forgive me if I am on the wrong list, but while discussion of the
>> ecosystem are all the rage these days, they do not directly address the
>> issue of how to fix the IGF.   And it desperately needs a major overhaul.
>> 
>> I am not sure I can make your upcoming call, and as I admit, I may be on
>> the wrong list.  I do like the idea of have 0 panelists and just floor
>> participation moderated by one or two individuals.  I think part of the
>> problem with main sessions is not that there are too many workshops as
>> some argue, but that they are dull repetitions of the same ole' talking
>> heads talking.   For many IGF panels, all one has to do is go back to
>> the recording of the previous year, to hear 80% of what is going to be
>> said this year.  An exciting and new format would be a real win.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30-Jul-14 10:29, Subi Chaturvedi wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU) -Stakeholder group-Gov.
>>> And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have confirmed their
>>> availability in addition to Ms. Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.
>>> 
>>> Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your organisation's
>>> participating. You've been copied on all mails which were sent out
>>> previously.
>>> 
>>> There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads and Mathew and Markus
>>> have also provided inputs along with substantive inputs from Constance,
>>> Vlada, Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus will be on
>>> the call today but we have a wide pool of options from accross
>>> stakeholder groups and some names for moderators to choose from.
>>> 
>>> All of them have been metaculously documented across several emails.
>>> 
>>> Your inputs have been most conducive.
>>> 
>>> Today there will be discussion further on refining format and policy
>>> questions.
>>> 
>>> Suggestions pertaining to :
>>> 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so that we keep maximum time
>>> for participation and interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
>>> 2. Format:
>>> A-no moderator
>>> B-4 moderators
>>> C-deep well with identified interventions for 3 mins each and then abt
>>> 40 minute long interventions from different stakeholder groups for each
>>> of the two halves.  Total of 80 interventions.
>>> D. A general chair some disucussants and then open mic with audience
>>> interventions only
>>> E. A roundtable with concentric circles
>>> D. An open space
>>> 
>>> 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
>>> (We hope to send out invites by the end of this week, since inputs have
>>> been received on session format the moratorium imposed on inviting
>>> speakers can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice to block
>>> their calenders)
>>> (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some are self nominations.
>>> So we have them too.
>>> Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
>>> 
>>> 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are travelling with youth
>>> volunteers.  Can they join us too for the session? Would they like to
>>> nominate some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet
>>> values will have some.
>>> 
>>> Any other inputs.
>>> 
>>> If anybody else wishes to join the call, please feel free and contact
>>> Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
>>> 
>>> We'll be updating the list soon.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Subi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> 
> .
> <Townhall IGF MAIN Role of IGF and IG Evol Format.png>
> <ATT00001>

From olgacavalli at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 08:41:49 2014
From: olgacavalli at gmail.com (Olga Cavalli)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:41:49 -0300
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
	=?utf-8?q?=5BIGFmaglist=5D_Next_Steps=3A_Way_For?=
	=?utf-8?q?ward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_?=
	=?utf-8?q?IGF_=C2=AD_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_I?=
	=?utf-8?q?TU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <A1FDB6D2-0400-4DFF-876A-F5589F6FB3AD@gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>
	<A7FCBB48-FAD5-42A2-BA8A-E63C3D423382@ostrowski.waw.pl>
	<A1FDB6D2-0400-4DFF-876A-F5589F6FB3AD@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPNZ5T7cDt9133QA3SkJa2u7z4cmq9PjmAS0=dmQhqOESYZkuA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,
proposed speakers are asking me about confirmation of their participation.
When will this be possible?
Best regards
Olga


2014-07-25 6:00 GMT-03:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Hi
>
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Igor Ostrowski <igor at ostrowski.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> I just got back from a holiday break and wanted to suggest to invite Rafa?
> Trzaskowski, our Minister of Administration and Digitization in Poland to
> attend the session.
>
>
> Thanks Igor for this interesting suggestion.  So the revised list of
> options the group should be discussing is below.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
> -------------
>
> *Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem*
>
> Moderator: TBD
>
> Panelists:
>
> 1. Fadi Chehade (ICANN)  [Invited, TBC]
> 2. Hamadoun Toure? (ITU)   [Invited, TBC]
> 3. Milton Mueller (Syracuse U.)   [Invited, TBC]
>
> *Panel 2: The Role of the IGF*
>
> 1. Kathy Brown (ISOC)   [Confirmed]
> 2. Vint Cerf (Google)  [Invited, TBC]
>
>
> Moderator options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now):
>
>    - Jeanette Hofmann (CS)
>    - Sam Dickinson (TC)
>
>
> Panelist options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now):
>
> Government/IGO:
>
>    - Rafa? Trzaskowski (Poland)
>    - Norberto Berner (Argentina)
>    - Benedicto Fonseca (Brazil)
>    - Neelie Kroes or Megan Richards (EC)
>    - Larry Strickling (US)
>    - Ed Vaizy (UK)
>    - Mohammed AlQurashi (KSA)
>    - Alice Munyua (AU)
>
> Private Sector:
>
>    - Danil Kerimi (WEF)
>    - Philipp Grabensee (Affilias)
>    - Zahid Jamil (Jamil & Jamil)
>    - Phil Rushton (BT)
>    - Jimson Olufuye (WITSA)
>
> Technical Community:
>
>    - Jari Arkko (IETF)
>    - Tim Berners Lee (W3C)
>    - Virgilio Almeida (Brazil/NM)
>    - Byron Holland (CIRA)
>    - Geoff Huston (APNIC)
>    - Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC)
>
> Civil Society:
>
>    - Jeremy Malcolm (EFF)
>    - Stephanie Perrin (UT)
>    - Wolfgang Kleinw?chter (ICANN)
>    - Nnenna Nwakanma (WWWF)
>    - Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo)
>    - Ron Deibert (Citizen Lab)
>    - Marilia Maciel (FGV)
>    - Adam Peake (Glocom)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140731/1e3a5535/attachment.htm>

From subichaturvedi at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 08:47:39 2014
From: subichaturvedi at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:17:39 +0530
Subject: [Evolintgov2014]
	=?utf-8?q?=5BIGFmaglist=5D_Next_Steps=3A_Way_For?=
	=?utf-8?q?ward_Evolution_of_Internet_Governance_Ecosystem/Role_of_?=
	=?utf-8?q?IGF_=C2=AD_=28Reaction_to_NETmundial_+_CSTD=2C_WSIS=2C_I?=
	=?utf-8?q?TU=2C_other_fora=2E=29?=
In-Reply-To: <CAPNZ5T7cDt9133QA3SkJa2u7z4cmq9PjmAS0=dmQhqOESYZkuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF04951DB5.3EBACE1B-ONC1257D11.0035A8EF-C1257D11.0036132F@unog.un.org>
	<CFE4698C.32B35%bommelaer@isoc.org> <53BE9F25.90401@cdt.org>
	<53BEA214.6030500@wzb.eu> <53BF3174.7070709@cdt.org>
	<CANRKRpJqnr3fLyf_jH6V_2JWVbzfe0sNJi6xOqmThkxdnktLqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F175C144-0FD5-4E3A-8B73-9D82DBA07D72@gmail.com>
	<F3003CBF-200E-4273-A97B-6170B75E327D@gmail.com>
	<A7FCBB48-FAD5-42A2-BA8A-E63C3D423382@ostrowski.waw.pl>
	<A1FDB6D2-0400-4DFF-876A-F5589F6FB3AD@gmail.com>
	<CAPNZ5T7cDt9133QA3SkJa2u7z4cmq9PjmAS0=dmQhqOESYZkuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANRKRpL-vLwg3tr3NnVa54bUV_Oq9NWooD0rcahEm8HwvGpxRA@mail.gmail.com>

Olga many thanks for the recommendations. I understand that all speakers
will need sufficient notice to block their calenders.
1. Received two from you.One from the technical community and the second
from gov.
2.
Have just received details of Phil.
Sent the email and have put you on cc
3. Could you pls send an email with the contacts of the second proposed
speaker. Don't have the coordinates.

Regards

Subi

On 31 Jul 2014 18:11, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> proposed speakers are asking me about confirmation of their participation.
> When will this be possible?
> Best regards
> Olga
>
>
> 2014-07-25 6:00 GMT-03:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:01 PM, Igor Ostrowski <igor at ostrowski.waw.pl>
wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Bill,
>>>
>>> I just got back from a holiday break and wanted to suggest to invite
Rafa? Trzaskowski, our Minister of Administration and Digitization in
Poland to attend the session.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Igor for this interesting suggestion.  So the revised list of
options the group should be discussing is below.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>> -------------
>>
>> Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem
>>
>> Moderator: TBD
>>
>> Panelists:
>>
>> 1. Fadi Chehade (ICANN)  [Invited, TBC]
>> 2. Hamadoun Toure? (ITU)   [Invited, TBC]
>> 3. Milton Mueller (Syracuse U.)   [Invited, TBC]
>>
>> Panel 2: The Role of the IGF
>>
>> 1. Kathy Brown (ISOC)   [Confirmed]
>> 2. Vint Cerf (Google)  [Invited, TBC]
>>
>>
>> Moderator options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now):
>> Jeanette Hofmann (CS)
>> Sam Dickinson (TC)
>>
>> Panelist options suggested so far (leaving off MAG members for now):
>>
>> Government/IGO:
>> Rafa? Trzaskowski (Poland)
>> Norberto Berner (Argentina)
>> Benedicto Fonseca (Brazil)
>> Neelie Kroes or Megan Richards (EC)
>> Larry Strickling (US)
>> Ed Vaizy (UK)
>> Mohammed AlQurashi (KSA)
>> Alice Munyua (AU)
>> Private Sector:
>> Danil Kerimi (WEF)
>> Philipp Grabensee (Affilias)
>> Zahid Jamil (Jamil & Jamil)
>> Phil Rushton (BT)
>> Jimson Olufuye (WITSA)
>> Technical Community:
>> Jari Arkko (IETF)
>> Tim Berners Lee (W3C)
>> Virgilio Almeida (Brazil/NM)
>> Byron Holland (CIRA)
>> Geoff Huston (APNIC)
>> Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC)
>> Civil Society:
>> Jeremy Malcolm (EFF)
>> Stephanie Perrin (UT)
>> Wolfgang Kleinw?chter (ICANN)
>> Nnenna Nwakanma (WWWF)
>> Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo)
>> Ron Deibert (Citizen Lab)
>> Marilia Maciel (FGV)
>> Adam Peake (Glocom)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140731/793591de/attachment.htm>