Flavio.Excellent.
I vote for the IGF Secretariat taking the appeal, as the Chair of the MAG is chairing the MAG, not running the IGF Secretariat. :-0
And I entrust the Secretariat with the day to day details.
One other item: earlier, I think that Peter Dengate Thrush proposed a sort of SOI - statement of interest -- and probably that would be helpful for all MAG members.
this is not a conflict of interest but a statement of interest, and just helps in transparency and helps all MAG members, in my view.
SOIs should help to inform all MAG members about engagement, involvement and interests.
Again, it is not a 'conflict of interest' but a statement of interest.
To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
From: flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 09:47:37 -0300
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Participation at IGF by MAG members
Dear all
Trying to summarize the issues on which there seems to exist an
agreement, and highlighting differences between Peter and Marilyn
positions:
1. We should recognize and publish the names of MAG members that
play the role of "organizers" of sessions of different types.
2. We do not accept MAG members organizing workshops.
3. If a MAG member coaches a workshop proposal, or if s/he is part
of an organization proposing a workshop, s/he must declare a
conflict of interest and refrain from reviewing / rating / voting
on this proposal.
4. We adopt a 3+1 rule [option: we adopt a 2+1 rule],
whereby MAG members can appear in at most 3 (or 2) workshops /
other types of sessions and in at most 1 main session. Exemptions
to this rule are accepted in exceptional cases, which requires
that the MAG member seeks dispensation. The MAG chair [option:
the IGF Secretariat] is entrusted with making those
decisions.
5. MAG members should not play the role of moderators of main
sessions, especially in the main sessions they are organizing /
facilitating.
So we have two decisions to take:
A) Rule for MAG members appearing at the microphone: 3+1 or 2+1.
B) MAG chair or IGF Secretariat is entrusted with making a
decision on dispensation of MAG member from the rule above (3+1 or
2+1).
Did I miss something?
Best regards
Flavio
My comments are in CAPS below.
M
There seems to be agreement on a couple of issues.
1. We should more formally adopt the role and title of
“organiser” for those MAG members who do all the hard work
of getting a session off the ground. That includes
workshops, Main sessions, posters, or any other format
that we use. We should aim to publish the names of the
“organising committee” as part of the programme. That will
reflect credit where its due, and may also assist with the
employer-funding visibility issue that seems well
understood. It distinguishes that work and those workers
from those people actually appearing at the microphone.
THIS SOUNDS VERY USEFUL BUT AGAIN, WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT
MAG MEMBERS ORGANIZING WORKSHOPS, THAT WE THEN RATE AND
APPROVE. I AGREE AS FAR AS THE MAIN SESSIONS ARE
CONCERNED.
A MAG MEMBER THAT COACHES A WORKSHOP MAY NEED TO RECUSE
THEMSELVES, AND A MAG MEMBER THAT IS PART OF AN
ORGANIZATION, WHETHER CS OR NGO, OR TECHNICAL COMMUNITY,
OR BIZ THAT IS DRIVING WORKSHOPS THOUGH THEIR OFFICIAL
WORKING ROLE, SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTING.
A MAG MEMBER THAT INFORMALLY COACHES THE ORIGINATION OF
A WORKSHOP BUT HAS NOT AN ONGOING ROLE MAY STILL VOTE, IN
MY VIEW.
AND, YES, THIS MAY BE A BIT OF SELF GOVERNANCE.
BUT MAG MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE ORGANIZING WORKSHOPS AND
THEN RATING THEM
2. There seems general agreement that MAG members
should not be appearing at the microphone- or not much.
Some are in favour of a ban, with an application for
occasional dispensation. Others prefer something a bit
less restrictive. My experience as a regulator suggests
people actually do work better when there is a clear rule
to follow. It can be published widely, form part of the
induction process, and lessens confusion.
I AM NOT SO HARSH ABOUT A MAG MEMBER APPEARING AT THE
MICROPHONE. THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM ASSUMING A MODERATOR
ROLE OR CO MODERATOR ROLE, ESPECIALLY IN A SESSION THAT
WAS ORGANIZED BY A LARGER GROUP OF MAG-ITES, OR MAG+.
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT YOU WERE EVER A REGULATOR, SO AM
LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THAT! JUST KIDDING. [HMM,
CHAIR OF INTERNETNZ; AND THEN CHAIR OF ICANN, AND THEN...
-- NO REGULATOR STUFF IN THAT LINE UP]
WE SHOULD NOT IGNORE THAT WE ARE EVOLVING AND THAT
FRANKLY, SOMETIMES THERE MAY BE THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY.
3. Given that this is an evolutionary process, perhaps
we can build on the success of the past use of the 3+1
concept. We already have a paper on Main Sessions that
says MAG members can appear on one session. If we add the
rider that this should not be a session that they are on
the organising committee for, perhaps we can keep that.
I SUPPORT, AS LONG AS YOU SHOW SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT
ALLOWS FOR AN EXEMPTION.
4. For Workshops and other formats, we could limit the
number of speaking options to 2, again with the rider that
these should not be sessions for which the MAG member is
on the organising committee or is otherwise a sponsor.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD STICK WITH 3. I DID NOT SEE THAT
THERE WAS AN EMPIRICAL SURVEY THAT ASKED WHETHER THAT
WORKED, AND WHEN IT WAS NOT ADHERED TO, AND BEFORE MOVING
TO TWO, I ASK FOR THAT. PERSONALLY, I FIND THAT TRYING TO
LIMIT MYSELF TO ONLY TWO, THEN RESULTED IN A LATE
INVITATION TO FILL IN AND MAKE SURE THAT A WORKSHOP WAS
BALANCED, AND I DID NOT HAVE TO ASK FOR DISPENSATION, BUT
COULD JUST 'MAKE IT SO'.
BUT STAYED WITHIN THE RULE OF THREE.
5. Everyone is free to seek dispensation for when a
special circumstance arises. I suggest the MAG Chair be
entrusted with making those decisions. If they feel the
need, they can consult with staff, form a committee etc
according to the need.
I THINK THAT STICKING WITH THREE FREES THE MAG CHAIR
FROM BEING TOO DEEP IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM, AND
IN FACT IF THIS IS SUPPORTED IT SHOULD BE THE SECRETARIAT,
NOT THE MAG CHAIR.
In summary, we will enhance the visibility of the
organising role, and lessen the speaking role to a narrow
2+1 format, with dispensation available if needed.
Does that have general support - or at least
acceptance?
Further comments welcomed.
Regards
Peter
On 21/05/2016, at 8:00 pm, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com>
wrote:
Thank you Flavio, Marilyn, Virat,
Petter and all for the clarification. I am now
clear in my mind and for this reason i agree on
all points,
especially continuing the policy from 2015 on
MAG member participation.
Cheers
WISDOM
DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
E-government
and Open Government Data
Platforms Specialist
National
Information Technology
Agency (NITA)/
Ghana
Open Data Initiative
Project.
ICANN
Fellow / Member, UN IGF
MAG Member, ISOC Member,
Freedom
Online Coalition (FOC)
Member, Diplo Foundation
Member,
OGP
Open Data WG Member, GODAN
Memember, ITAG Member
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook:
facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
On Fri, May 20, 2016
at 11:41 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
wrote:
I was the originator of
the initial discussion that led to
creating the 3+1 as a standing
agreement when I came in as a MAG
member, and many other MAG members
agreed. That is what led to the
'3+1'.
I did this because as a non MAG
member, I saw many workshops with
MAG members submitting workshops, or
using their affiliated entities to
submit workshop proposals, and then
having to select them and then being
speakers, or moderators. And the
annual IGF was then having the
same co moderators over and over,
year after year, for the main
sessions.
We need to
remember that IGF and MAG has been
evolving and in perhaps earlier
years, this overwhelming role of the MAG was well
intentioned, and well meaning, and
we were perhaps struggling to find
speakers, and co moderators, who
could get funding to attend.
However, in 2014,
and 2015, we have made progress
and in my personal view,
I think that the
3+1 remains realistic, and
pragmatic, and does not penalize
MAG members too much. I realize
that we each, as MAG members are
doing a tremendous amount of work.
But I continue to insist that MAG
members not submit workshop
proposals, and I hope that
those on the MAG with affiliations
will do their best to only be
coaches
I also understand the comment
made about having to justify some
kind of involvement if one is
gaining support from a community, or
an academic entity to spend the time
necessary, but I think that we all
need to realize and ensure support
that MAG members are appointed by
the UN SecGen and need to convince
themselves, and their employer,
whomever that is -- whether
business, government, NGO/CS, or
university -- that there is a need
to be as independent as possible.
I still think that MAG's purpose
is to coach, and help outreach to
new speakers for both main sessions
and workshops.
However, I am realistic that if
we set an objective of no more than
one main session as a speaker, or co
moderator, this may be the most
realistic, while sticking to the no
workshops submitted by a MAG
member. I know that our job is
really to encourage the development
of workshops through reaching out to
networks, but we can all commit to
not rating workshops that we have
direct relationships with, as a
standard practice, and commit to the
no more than one main session.
Look, this is more work, frankly,
than doing it ourselves.
I realize that identifying and
coaching is more work than being the
experts we are, but we are on the
MAG for only a short cycle, and the
more we coach, and enrich
participation, the more the IGF
grows and is sustainable.
So, here's to the no more than 3
speaking roles on workshops and no
more than 1 main session per MAG
member. Even at that and here is the
math:
50 MAG members X 3 is 150
workshops with MAG speakers
50 MAG members X 1 for main
sessions could be 50 of the slots in
whatever the number of the main
sessions turns out to be: 6 or 8:
that would mean that if main
sessions have 6-10 speakers, X 6 so
60 at max, up to 50 speakers from
MAG might be proposed. I know that
we are not headed there, but we
really should think about perhaps no
more than 3-4 MAG members per main
session, and showing cause why the
MAG member is the best speaker,along
the lines of the 'exception'.
I have proposed a SDG
consultation main session and am
following up on that, but consistent
with the WSIS+10 session, which I
was privileged to co organize with
Brazil, Lea, and others, we invited
different moderators and took the
role of rapporteurs.
I am not suggesting that a MAG
member is never the best moderator,
or co facilitator, but I do urge
that we as MAG members embrace the
no more than 3 workshops [unless
there is such fallout of a moderator
or speaker at least minute that a
MAG member is needed to support a
workshop as an exception -- that
does happen and if we are not 'full
up' on 3 then we can be the angel
that supports a workshop when travel
or other situations lead to gaps
that might lead to cancellation of a
workshop.
As I look ahead to the MAG after
I leave it and that day will come
soon, I am hoping that it is
enriched by at least another 25 per
year active participants per
stakeholder group that I can
cheerfully say: the MAG enhanced
diversity in gender, geo
representation, and issue diversity,
so that we have at least 100 more
experts each year who return to
build on the IGF, both in our IGF
annually, and also feed back into
their national or sub regional or
regional IGF.
From: virat.bhatia at intl.att.com
To: barrister at chambers.gen.nz;
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 21:20:29
+0530
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist]
Participation at IGF by MAG
members
Dear Members of the MAG,
Sent this out 2 hours ago,
but some didn’t get it. My
apologies if it is resend
for anyone.
Regards,
Virat Bhatia
From:
Bhatia, Virat
Sent: Friday, May
20, 2016 7:08 PM
To: 'Peter
Dengate Thrush' <barrister at chambers.gen.nz>;
'MAG-public' <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: RE:
[IGFmaglist]
Participation at IGF by
MAG members
Dear
Peter,
Many
thanks for your email.
This
is an important issue and
we must try and close it
at the earliest and with
the best possible way
forward.
Here
is a brief description of
the evolutionary
perspective, and past
discussions, followed by
my submission on the
issue.
1.
Discussion
started in 2014
(i) Before
2014 IGF in Istanbul, some
MAG members (not all)
served as speakers and/or
moderators in main
sessions and workshops.
There was no rule limiting
or preventing such
participation. In 2014,
during my first year in
the MAG, the MAG imposed a
self-restraint, ahead of
Istanbul IGF for the first
time. Some of the reasons
are already well
documented in your mail.
Pros and cons were argued
(as you have) and on the
balance, the rule of “3+1”
was agreed upon (maximum
of 3 workshops and 1 main
session), where a MAG
member could serve either
as a speaker and/or as a
moderator.
(ii) In
part, the complete ban
could not be imposed in
2014, because, by the time
the discussion on limiting
MAG members participation
as speakers and / or
moderators gained ground,
several MAG members had
already committed to serve
as speakers on approved
workshops for IGF 2014.
Since MAG members were
already committed, they
could not withdraw at the
last minute, leaving
workshop organizers in a
lurch.
2.
In
2015
In
2015 the rule continued to
remain, but it was
generally understood that
MAG members could serve as
speakers and/or moderators
at main sessions and
workshops within the rule
of 3+1, but only as an
exception. (E.g. no other
candidate available to
serve as moderator /
speaker or last minute
cancellation, etc.) At
least that is how I
understood the position
and acted upon it.
Admittedly the rule may
not have been followed in
its letter and spirit in
2015. However my
impression is, that for
the most part there was
tremendous self-restraint
shown by MAG members in
2015.
Several
of us in the MAG who have
been regular speakers and
moderators, both for main
sessions and workshops,
have politely refused
speaking opportunities,
offered by workshop
proposers and main session
organizers in 2014 and 15.
3.
Now
for 2016 ( my
submission)
For
2016, I would recommend
that we go with option 3
that you have suggested:
“A
complete limit (ban) on
MAG member involvement
(probably with a let-out
clause that would allow
a MAG member to apply
for dispensation in
certain circumstance).”
If
the MAG agrees, this can
be implemented for both
main sessions and
workshops in 2016.
Main
sessions: Main
session written proposals
have not been finalized
(perhaps not even written
yet), so no MAG member
stands committed as a
speaker and / or
moderator. Sufficient time
for co-facilitators to
find good alternatives
between now and November
2016.
Workshops:
Since Workshop proposal
evaluations have not begun
yet, MAG members (if they
agree) can recuse
themselves, if a workshop
proposer reaches out to
them for serving as a
moderator or speaker.
However,
as option 3 (above)
implies, if there are
unavoidable circumstances,
where the MAG member in
his wisdom decides, and
the MAG agrees that an
exception needs to be
made, for either a main
session or workshop, then
the same can be allowed.
The
above restraint (ban) is only
for serving MAG members
(during their tenure) as
speakers and / or
moderators at main
sessions and workshops.
Once they rotate off the
list, they can and must
accept moderator /speaker
roles for both main
sessions and workshops.
In fact in some cases,
they may be the best
suited candidates
The
restraint does not in any
stop the MAG members from
being co-facilitators or
organizers of main
sessions. In fact quite
the contrary. The role of
co-facilitators is
completely different from
that of moderators, as
explained in the Working
Group recommendations.
Again,
opting for restraint is my
personal preference, and
submitted for MAG’s
consideration. Invite MAG
members to weigh in.
Regards,
Virat
Bhatia
-----Original Message-----
From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org]
On Behalf Of Peter Dengate
Thrush
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016
6:08 AM
To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: [IGFmaglist]
Participation at IGF by MAG
members
Fellow MAG members,
With apologies for the
delay, I’d like to return to
a topic raised in our call
last month - the public
participation in events at
IGF meetings by MAG members.
It appears there was a time
when MAG members played an
active part in not only
proposing sessions of
various sorts at IGF
meetings, but
chairing/moderating,
speaking ( on panels and
other formats) and generally
taking a very public role at
IGF meetings.
Over time, it has seemed
more appropriate for MAG
members to play a lesser
public role. The possibility
of a conflict of interest in
proposing sessions which MAG
members are involved in,
even if they personally
refrain from evaluating
their own proposals, is one
obvious reason for a reduced
role.
When I joined the MAG last
year, there were various
comments made to the effect
that MAG members should not
assume public roles, but
should encourage, coach and
facilitate new talent to
emerge.
Last year, it appeared to me
(entirely subjectively) that
MAG members generally took a
lower profile, but that was
not uniform. Some MAG
members appeared in a
variety of public roles.
It seems to me we should
have a discussion then come
to a quick conclusion about
the parameters of the public
performance by MAG members.
The points on both sides of
the issue are obvious: on
the one hand MAG members are
(typically) leaders in their
communities, and have a good
grasp of a wide range of
topics, and serve well as
speakers on topics they are
familiar with, if not
experts upon. One of the
reasons for joining the MAG
is to increase one’s
involvement in these issues.
For some if not many MAG
members, active
participation ( being in the
published programme) is a
pre-requisite for getting
funding from employers or
other parties. In other
cases, it is the groups
putting the sessions
together that seek the
participation of MAG members
because of their high
profile and expertise.
On the other hand, MAG
members are leaders in their
communities, and don’t need
to increase their profiles.
They could be using their
positions to bring on new
talent.The conflict of
interest point extends
across all formats - many
worthwhile and interesting
sessions are not approved
for inclusion, and it
weakens the IGF to have any
appearance of favouritism.
MAG members should do other
things to enhance the
profile of the IGF.
Doubtless there are more
points, with many nuances
around each one.
I suggest, for the purposes
of the discussion that I now
invite, that we consider
three broad options;
(1) No Limits on MAG member
involvement:
(2) Some limit (TBD after
debate, but probably along
the lines of the “Rule of 3”
some have cited ( as if it
were a rule);
(3) A complete limit (ban)
on MAG member involvement (
probably with a let-out
clause that would allow a
MAG member to apply for
dispensation in certain
circumstance).
I look forward to some
discussion on this, and then
a move to closure.
I note that the Main
Sessions draft produced by
that WG takes the position
that all Main Sessions need
to be facilitated by MAG
members ( a continuation of
the same position taken in
the 2015 paper.) I’d be
interested in learning of
the reasoning behind that.
Thanks in advance for your
thoughts on this.
Regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
--
Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner Tel: +55-51-3308 9494
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Fax: +55-51-3308 7308
Instituto de Informática E-mail: flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Porto Alegre, Brasil URL: www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160525/f2185936/attachment.htm>