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

Wed Jul 23 03:55:13 EDT 2014

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

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