[IGFmaglist] [igf_members] IGF Reform Proposals
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Tue Dec 3 06:30:41 EST 2013
Dear all
This is terribly late.. but some comments that we can possibly pick up
on in the meeting.
1) Mandate of the MAG
Yes, it is true that it is limited to organising the meeting, but that
in itself is a problem that demands attention. I see no reason why we as
a MAG (an outgoing MAG) cannot bring this to the attention of the UN SG
and make some proposals for strengthening the IGF.
2) The importance of acting now
Recent developments in the form of the meeting that will take place in
Brazil and related efforts such as the 'High Level Panel on the Future
of IG' present both challenges and opportunities for the IGF. Should we
simply 'wait and see' what happens?
I would propose that we do present some proposals along the lines of
Patrick's suggestions. I think this is consistent with our mandate as a
MAG as those are factors that, if not addressed, will continue to impede
our ability to fulfil our mandate as the MAG - to organise the IGF -
effectively.
Aside from the challenges provided by the vacant positions of Executive
Secretary (paid position not yet filled since Markus left) and Special
Adviser (appointed by the SG and vacant since Nitin Desai left) the IGF
needs capacity at secretariat level and it needs some form of governance
structure that provide the secretariat with support, that provides
leadership and an interface between the IGF community and the MAG.
This could, even if on an interim basis, be an informal 'committee'
elected by the MAG from among its own members.
3) The mandate of the IGF
This has come up again in recent discussions. The working group on IGF
improvements discussed this at length and made proposals on how to
improve the IGF's implementation of its mandate. But there remain gaps.
I think it would be good for us to also consider the IGF's mandate in
the light of new processes that are emerging, in part because of
perceived (and real I believe) gaps in the IGF process.
It would be good for us as an outgoing MAG to discuss that as well as it
is our role to make sure that the way in which the IGF is organised
ensures that it fulfils its Tunis Agenda mandate.
I therefore suggest that we do discuss this MAG making some proposals on
strengthening the IGF and on positioning it to do better at achieving
its original goals.
I propose we do it from the vantage point of our current mandate, making
the link between how these structural and institutional weaknesses makes
it so much harder for us to do our work effectively.
Anriette
On 19/10/2013 16:22, Fiona Alexander wrote:
> It seems there is some sensitivity to the MAG as the MAG discussing
> and proposing improvements, enhancements, reforms, etc. given it's
> narrow mandate/role when the IGF was first called for in the Tunis
> Agenda. It's also not particularly open or transparent for this small
> group to do this alone.
>
> Patrick offers some good topics for discussion though. Perhaps we can
> take advantage of his effort and ask him (and others) to present ideas
> in the open mic session on Friday. This would have the benefit of
> being open to others and the discussion could be summarised into a
> report and then shared via the IGF website.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Fiona
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: Igfmaglist <igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org>
> *To*: Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com>; Chris Disspain
> <ceo at auda.org.au>
> *Cc*: igfmag <igf_members at intgovforum.org>; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> <igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> *Sent*: Sat Oct 19 08:20:25 2013
> *Subject*: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF Reform Proposals
>
> Patrick, Chris, et al,
>
>
>
> I agree that these issues should be discussed, and think that it would
> be a missed opportunity if we (not necessarily as MAG if that's not in
> our mandate, but as broader community) did not take them on while in
> Bali.
>
>
>
> I support the idea of organizing a session on this topic, or at least
> an open forum.
>
>
>
> Sanja
>
>
>
> Sanja Tatic Kelly
>
> Project Director, Freedom on the Net
>
> Freedom House
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Igfmaglist [igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] on behalf of
> Patrick Ryan [patrickryan at google.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 19, 2013 8:07 AM
> *To:* Chris Disspain
> *Cc:* igfmag; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF Reform Proposals
>
> Chris,
>
> Excellent questions----since there is no written scope for the MAG,
> the intent is to focus on structural changes for the IGF itself. In
> fact, I don't think that /any/ of the suggested issues are in the
> mandate of the MAG at all (even though the "mandate" is unwritten),
> and certainly not in the MAG's control to change.
>
> I'm intentionally avoiding the discussion of "program committee"
> issues (which is the MAG's main historical function). These reforms
> are important but are already part of a healthy debate and being
> driven by other proposals (such as Fiona's from a few weeks ago).
>
> So yes, the UN writ large is the organization that would need to
> implement and effectuate the reform proposals here, as heavy as a lift
> as that may seem. In terms of other areas of agreement with how I
> interpret your comments:
>
> * I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should not use our role in
> the MAG to force any discussion here, and especially not to limit
> the discussion to MAG members---starting it with the MAG is fine
> so long as it's not exclusively there, and expressly inclusive of
> other stakeholders.
> * I also agree that the discussion needs to happen in the right
> arena (not sure what that is, but my instinct tells me clearly
> that assuming a later meeting or opportunity will arise is not
> going to work).
> * I love your suggestion of organizing a last-minute session here in
> Bali to discuss this---one that's inclusive of the broader
> community, which I think is also a version of Angelic's suggestion
> earlier.
>
> I think a core question is: can we organize such a meeting while we're
> here in Bali with the community while we're here (using remote
> participation to include others)? Maybe this is where the MAG can
> act, i.e., by exercising a strong voice in the MAG's role as a program
> committee to get space, time, and agenda to host the discussion this week.
>
> Patrick
>
> P.S. all of the foundational documents that were available on .pdfs on
> the IGF's page are redirecting somewhere else, like the IGF Project
> Document and other pdfs that were available here
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=51&Itemid=68>.
> Hopefully this can get fixed?
>
> ------
> *patrick ryan *
> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l
> relations
> patrickryan at google.com <mailto:patrickryan at google.com> | +1.512.751.5346
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au
> <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:
>
> Hi Patrick, All,
>
> So, here's my take on all of this:
>
> I guess you wrote this document - what is your goal for it? Are
> you a) aiming to get input from all interested parties and then do
> something with it or b) are you intending that it be developed
> into a MAG position or c) something else.
>
> I woud have no problem giving you input providing that I know
> where this is intended to head.
>
> If the goal is to get to a MAG position then I have some real
> concerns. I think most of the points you have raised are outside
> the scope of the MAG and so I'm uncomfortable with the MAG *as a
> group* coming to some consensus position on these points and then
> lobbying to make it so. And, irrespective of my discomfort, I
> doubt such an approach would be effective. The MAG's time would be
> better spent concentrating on its mandate and doing its job.
>
> If the goal is to get IGF interested folks from all areas to
> coalesce around ways to improve the IGF then that's fine but I
> would counsel against using your position as a MAG member for that
> purpose. And I would advise against the MAG formally meeting to
> discuss this paper.
>
> I'm not seeking to close down a debate that I think is critical
> but rather to ensure it takes place in the right arena. I wonder
> whether there's any possibility of organising a last minute
> session open to all to discuss IGF improvements? Or maybe there is
> already a session that can be used for that?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 19/10/2013, at 19:02 , Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
>> Markus,
>>
>> That's a fair point of clarification, and I don't think that
>> discussion needs to be in a MAG meeting, although it could be,
>> although your concerns about timing are noted. Truth is, there
>> seems to never be the right time to discuss these reform issues
>> (they're difficult and all a really heavy lift), so I think we
>> need to seize the moment (and multiple moments, for that matter).
>> From my perspective, the discussions must start in earnest now,
>> and while it would be ideal to do it in a setting with all of us
>> together, it's also possible to do it by email and in the
>> doc---although somewhat inefficient, that also enables the
>> participants who were unable to make it here this year, and for
>> non MAG members. Thank you for your comments here by email as it
>> already helps to advance the discussion and to hear your
>> perspective on a couple of the points.
>>
>> To your question about format, the proposal is in Google Docs not
>> because it's a proprietary format. It should work on any browser
>> through HTML 5, which is open sourced, and using the link
>> eliminates the need for version control. If anybody would like
>> to download and store a version of the document in the version at
>> any point in time, it can be done by opening the doc (available
>> here
>> <https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1IpseDEXj9F25-RQkJWX6ERYl6_K3-jlC0HpTYuqFDCY/edit>),
>> then File > Download As > then selecting whichever local format
>> you prefer (Word, RTF, ODT, TXT or HTML).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> P.S. I just finished this email as you walked by to say hello in
>> the hotel lobby! Would love to discuss live if you have a minute
>> now.
>>
>> ------
>> *patrick ryan *
>> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and
>> int'l relations
>> patrickryan at google.com
>> <mailto:patrickryan at google.com> | +1.512.751.5346
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org
>> <mailto:kummer at isoc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It will not be possible to hold a MAG meeting on Sunday
>> morning, as the rooms will not be available and, also, the
>> Secretariat fully engaged with last minute preparations.
>>
>> Also, I don't think that we will be able to discuss Patrick's
>> reform proposals at our meetings in Bali - the MAG meetings
>> will be very short and we will have to make best possible use
>> of them to run the meeting.
>>
>> However, I am happy to organise a call to discuss the paper
>> once the meeting is over. Only two preliminary comments:
>>
>> I am sure that we would all support an unlimited mandate for
>> the IGF. However, this is out of scope for the MAG and, if
>> anything, would be counterproductive.
>>
>> I would also like to recall that the IGF Secretariat
>> repeatedly urged the MAG to come up with a formula for
>> selecting its members and time and again the MAG preferred to
>> sticking to the current practice, leaving it what MAG Members
>> used to term "the black box". I for one would strongly
>> support any effort to develop a more transparent formula.
>> This is clearly within the scope of the MAG.
>>
>> Lastly, may I ask Patrick to send us the document he
>> circulated as an attachment rather than using proprietary web
>> services.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:18 PM, angelic40 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:angelic40 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Patrick,
>> >
>> > Yes, I am all for a discussion whether it is during one of
>> the MAG get tot hers or just an evening over dinner or so. I
>> will not arrive in time for a weekend session, but if I make
>> it to Bali, I will be available starting Thursday morning.
>> > I agree that an online discussion/ participation should be
>> part of it.
>> >
>> > Looking forward to participating in this discussion
>> > Angelic
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Ryan
>> <patrickryan at google.com <mailto:patrickryan at google.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Angelic,
>> >>
>> >> That's a really good question---we don't actually have
>> anything set up to discuss this, although I'm hopeful that we
>> can address it at one of the MAG meetings that has been set.
>> Alternatively, for those that are arriving this weekend, I
>> would love to get together----say, on Sunday morning----to
>> host a discussion. I also think that it will be important to
>> see if we can collect some of the views of colleagues that
>> have not been able to make it to Bali for various reasons
>> (such as the visa situation), and so I suspect that the
>> discussion should also include some online elements (email,
>> maybe we create another Doc that people can collaborate on)
>> so that we can hear their views.
>> >>
>> >> If you or anybody has any thoughts on that, I would love
>> to hear them.
>> >>
>> >> Patrick
>> >>
>> >> ------
>> >> patrick ryan
>> >> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free
>> expression and int'l relations
>> >> patrickryan at google.com <mailto:patrickryan at google.com> |
>> +1.512.751.5346 <tel:%2B1.512.751.5346>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Angelic del Castilho
>> <angelic40 at gmail.com <mailto:angelic40 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> Dear Patrick,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for this information. Is there a specific date
>> set during the IGF in Bali for discussing this document or is
>> the discussion only through comments online for now?
>> >>
>> >> Have a great day!
>> >> Angelic
>> >>
>> >> Angelic Caroline Alihusain-del Castilho
>> >> POB 3036
>> >> Wanica
>> >> Suriname
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Patrick Ryan
>> <patrickryan at google.com <mailto:patrickryan at google.com>> wrote:
>> >> Dear MAG Colleagues,
>> >>
>> >> As we head into the IGF this year, I wanted to share some
>> thoughts on the "top five" issues for IGF reform. The
>> document is in a draft form and could benefit form the
>> thoughts and input from all of us. It's not a private
>> document, so feel free to share. It's not a Google position
>> although as I've mentioned to many, many of my colleagues at
>> Google are very keen to make sure that we engage in serious
>> reform discussions----starting next week.
>> >>
>> >> It's never easy to propose reform discussions of this kind
>> (it's hard in any organization) and I genuinely hope that the
>> suggestions here will be received by the UN and IGF
>> colleagues in the positive spirit that they are intended. We
>> all believe strongly in the IGF and it's because of our
>> belief in it that we should be talking about how to make it
>> stronger.
>> >>
>> >> The document is available here. Comments are really
>> welcome and encouraged, either by email or by using the
>> comment function of Google Docs.
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >>
>> >> Patrick
>> >>
>> >> ------
>> >> patrick ryan
>> >> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free
>> expression and int'l relations
>> >> patrickryan at google.com <mailto:patrickryan at google.com> |
>> +1.512.751.5346 <tel:%2B1.512.751.5346>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> >>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Igfmaglist mailing list
>> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> >
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> igf_members mailing list
> igf_members at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20131203/5626b42c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Igfmaglist
mailing list