[Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ­ (Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)

[William Drake]

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 Kleinwächter
> > >>> 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>