[IGFmaglist] Towards a more dynamic IGF: Contributions to the sessions

[Vladimir Radunovic]

Dear colleagues,

you might have seen a blog by EC Commissioner Neelie Kroes to NETmundial
HL/EC team:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/netmundial-lets-g
et-work 
In it, she strongly encourages strengthening the IGF through number of
concrete actions; in a nutshell, she suggest that the MAG and the IGF
meeting in Istanbul become direct follow-ups of most  of what will be agreed
at NETmundial. 

At the moment it seems very likely that the NETmundial outcome document will
strongly support IGF, and invite it to provide follow-ups. It may push for a
(desirable) trend that the IGF becomes observed as a space to follow-up from
certain process or on certain issues. This will certainly strengthen the
IGF, but it also brings more accountability to it to dynamically evolve and
follow up on annual developments in "real time" (like we did very well with
NSA case for IGF Bali). 

That means the current "annual cycle" of applications for workshops 6 months
ahead of the IGF will not be sufficient if we want to sustain the trend of
IGF becoming a "key space". Already at the IGF in Istanbul, we will need to
reflect number of NETmundial outcomes, if not the outputs of some other
processes as well (CSTD WG on EC, IANA/ICANN, Freedom Online, various
high-level groups...). Our current model of building the annual programme
can't accept such a dynamics of important inputs to the agenda. 

One way to improve is to develop the model of inter-sessional dialogue.
There is number of e-participation approaches that we can use, but we should
discuss this separately. 

The other way to improve on IGF already in Istanbul, without changing our
annual planning dynamics, is that we introduce "contributions to sessions" -
similar to what NETmundial had: once MAG agrees on the programme (workshops
and key main-sessions), the IGF should issue a public call for to the
community for online contributions to any of the sessions or thematic areas
of the IGF. Contributions would then be considered by the organisers of each
session/WS, thereby additionally shaping the focus/agenda of each
session/WS. This could be helpful to the session organisers both to
facilitate the discussions along the lines of public interest, and to
provide a better written summary by using points from the contributions
together with discussion points.

This is especially important for our main sessions: we should build up the
agenda of each thematic session based on the public contributions received
(say with deadline one month before the IGF, so that the team can go through
the contributions and provide a summary). 

Receiving contributions that should shape the agenda of each session should
provide greater possibility for inputs from community and other processes at
almost any time, without interrupting our annual programme setting cycle. It
would show the IGF is ready to become a central space for dialogue that can
dynamically react on developments.

Best,

	Vlada



***
Upcoming online courses at Diplo:  
Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option)  l
Internet Governance l E-diplomacy l Current Issues in the UN l Diplomacy of
Small states l 
Complete Catalogue of Online Courses:  http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses   
***

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Vladimir Radunovic 
Internet Governance and E-diplomacy
DiploFoundation 
email: vladar at diplomacy.edu 
web: www.diplomacy.edu
twitter: @vradunovic
 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/