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

[Avri Doria]

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 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
> <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
>