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

Fri Jul 11 05:17:12 EDT 2014

Thank you Ana. Deeply insightful. Some invites have gone, bearing in mind
respective calenders. We're holding off on others for now till we're able
to build broader consensus on the overall structure.

Adding your inputs to the note. Many thanks for your constructive
suggestions.

Regards

Subi

On 11 Jul 2014 13:25, "Ana Neves" <Ana.Neves at fct.pt> wrote:
>
> Dear Subi, dear colleagues,
>
> Bearing in mind everything that has been written and explained by Subi,
and supporting Bill's concerns, I think this interaction obliged me to have
a new look into the session and to try to understand what would be
innovative in a session like this one.
>
> Am I understanding correctly that all these persons
>
> IGF- Janis Karklins
> ITU- Hamadoun
> ICANN- Fadi Chehade’
> ISOC - Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
> IETF-Jari Arkko
> W3C- Tim Berners Lee
> Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>
> were invited to speak? Because we now have A. Strands and B. Stakeholder
speakers, so I understand that persons highlighted on A would be invited to
talk about "their" organizations, as representatives of each strand.
>
> If that is so, I dare to say (as this is a space to open dialogue) that
for A. what would be really innovative would be to have Touré speaking
about IGF and NETmundial, Fadi about ITU, Tim Berners Lee on IGF, Janis on
ISOC (and IETF), Jari on ITU and Amb. Fonseca/Prof Virgilio on ICANN and
ITU. Or everyone in a different order, but the point here would be to make
all these "CEOs" to truly talk about the evolution of the Internet
Governance System but not in a defending  mode of "their"
organizations/movements but to have a say on how they see all the other
organizations in an ecosystem that they are part of.
>
> Is it too out of your minds? Well, in my humble opinion, that it is what
would make this session really interesting. I talked about this potential
model with different people with different backgrounds (the so called
participants) and I only had very positive inputs.
>
> Best,
>
> Ana
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 11/07/2014, at 07:35, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the
session. Noted. You will indeed add value.
>
> 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.
>
> Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and we
keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an
experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists speaking
from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the top down
distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.
>
> Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for
facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and
organisational contributions are indeed welcome.
>
> Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established
leaders speak to key issues before and interventions might sound familiar,
there are many who are first time participants at the IGF or are relatively
new or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality interventions from
these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to contribute in building the
knowledge agenda, educating and increasing awareness amongst new
stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG ecosystem and are not
privy to the same insights that these leaders are or some of us might be.
Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two years alone is rapidly
undergoing a transformation, new processes, initiatives, commissions and
new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be well daunting and downright
impossible for many especially where there is a gap that exists between
information generators, keepers and consumers. Capacity building and
contributing to the knowledge agenda is also a key objective here.
>
> We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation
where the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to
encourage speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries,
represent small island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by voicing
concerns of underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender balance and
regional diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we hope with such
resourceful contributors this panel will be anything but. I hope we can
revisit the our individual knowledge bases and continue to work towards
this.
>
> I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive
by thinking outside the box, proactively.
>
> The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the
volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs,
suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers, policy
questions in the next couple of days.
>
> So that we may move forward.
>
> It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven
especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from
respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient
notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for
this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have been
of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue to
engage.
>
>
> The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful
and substantive discussion on the next call.
>
> regards
>
> Subi
>
>
>
>
> On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:
mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
> Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also
know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be
expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity of
views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons listed
below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped by
issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is plenty of
time for other voices to speak.
>
>
> On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists.
Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive number
of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will use most
of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also
know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be
expected.
>
> We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were run
without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the talking.
Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I wonder if it
wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.
>
> Best, Jeanette
>
> Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
> While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
> potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
> Thank you, Sorina.
>
> There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
> receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
> checked.
>
> With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
> has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
> confirmed her participation in this main session.
>
> All the best,
> Constance
>
>
> From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch> <mailto:
STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>>
> Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
> To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:
evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>"
> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>>>
> Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
> Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF – (Reaction to NETmundial +
> CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)
>
> Dear all,
>
> We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
> through before.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sorina Teleanu
> IGF Secretariat
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_
<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>
> *Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
> Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF – (Reaction to
> NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
> *Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
> *To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:
evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
>
> Hi
>
> So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
> list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
> it’d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
> and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.
>
> We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
> the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
> IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
> IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
> gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn’t all redirect to less
> inclusive organizations and alliances).
>
> So some questions:
>
> 1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
> - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora”. Would it not
> make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
> fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with “and the.”
> Thoughts?
>
> 2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
> to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I’m not clear which of
> the bits of text I’ve seen constitute the current draft description,
> so if that could be shared for consideration it’d be really helpful.
>
> 3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
> following:
>
> >> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:
subichaturvedi at gmail.com>_
> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> >>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
> >>>
> >>> A. The strands/org identified are:
> >>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
> >>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure’
> >>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade’
> >>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
> >>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
> >>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
> >>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
> >>>
> >>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
> >>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> >>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
> >>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
> >>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
> >>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
> developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
> Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there’s Marco Civil.
> Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
> might work here.)
>
> I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
> into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
> time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
> head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it’s boring and
> there’s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
> moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
> everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I’ve
> co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
> MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
> challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
> with a big group commenting in different directions.
>
> Second, I’m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
> several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
> others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
> collectively agreed manner.
>
> Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
> who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
> that road until there’s been dialogue and everyone’s on board? There
> are 18 people subscribed to this list and I’m guessing I am not the
> only one here who doesn’t quite understand where we are or how we got
> here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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>_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
> __william.drake at uzh.ch<http://uzh.ch>_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch
<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> (direct),
> _wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com
<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> (lists),_
> __www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> ***********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
> __Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>_
> __
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140711/a0bda114/attachment.htm>

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

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