[IGFmaglist] On equal footing: an alternative proposal for NRIs at the IGF

Wed Jun 14 11:15:21 EDT 2017

Dear All,

   1. Thank you Elizabeth and Carolyn for making a "Suggested Alternative".
   2. I would like to clarify a few things, firstly that we met in our
   capacity as MAG members during the side meetings, and Segun, Wisdom and I
   were not there as NRI representatives.
   3. Following the sentiments raised regarding the NRIs yesterday, we
   wanted to get further clarification on the rationale and the thought
   processes behind the sentiments expressed which is why we asked for a side
   meeting;
   4. Clarified sight is achieved through collaboration and dialogue and
   this dialogue has to reflect a level of diversity in stakeholder groups and
   we really appreciated the time taken to sit for an additional hour and a
   half to walk through the issues and to understand diversity of arguments;
   5. We walked away from the side meeting better understanding where
   Liesyl and Elizabeth and Carolyn were coming from;
   6. I would like to offer the following comments in relation to the NRIs
   and the IGF Process.
   7. During the discussions what clearly was evident (*arising from the
   interventions made by Liesyl in yesterday's MAG meeting and that was also
   raised by Elizabeth and further clarified in the side meeting*) was that
   the issue/concern raised was with how [structurally the NRIs and their work
   should be featured/integrated] within the IGF program;
   8. From our side meeting yesterday, the issue raised was that the NRIs
   should not be given a dedicated track of workshops but rather be [more
   fully] integrated into the program overall. [Some felt that "carving out" a
   new track for the NRIs would lead to unintended consequences for the IGF
   program development down the road]
   9. To this, I had responded that in order to do this the MAG would have
   to give the NRIs at least one year in advance call for workshop proposals
   to allow for effective integration;
   10. Noting that Para 10 of the Working Group on Internet Governance
   Report 2005 <https://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> took into account
   the larger debate among stakeholders in World Summit on Information Society
   (WSIS), WGIG provided the following working definition: *"Internet
   Governance is the development and application by Governments,, the private
   sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles,
   norms, rules, decision making procedures, and programs that shape the
   evolution and use of the Internet."*
   11. Notably, countries and territories, sub-regions and regions have
   challenges and issues pertaining to IGF issues that may differ and offer a
   level of geographical diversity;
   12. The MAG selects Workshops based on a Thematic Area which it selects
   an on a set of criteria and guidelines;
   13. Countries and territories and sub-regions have a level of autonomy
   in identifying what are relevant and new emerging issues pertaining to
   internet governance. NRIs are a conduit for highlighting issues pertaining
   to Internet Governance.
   14. There has to be a mechanism within the IGF to allow for the global
   sharing of the "*development and application by Governments,, the
   private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared
   principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures, and programs that
   shape the evolution and use of the Internet".*
   15. One of the possible ways to do this is through the Day 0 event where
   the NRIs could have a whole day pre-IGF meeting to enable them to do this
   and synthesizing the common issues in the Main Session of the IGF.

Submitted for MAG consideration,
Sala

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Flávio Rech Wagner <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>
wrote:

> Dear Elizabeth and Carolyn
>
> I support your view and thank you for the proposal.
>
> We, as MAG, need indeed to make an effort to fully integrate into the
> programme the outcomes and contributions of the NRIs and also from the
> intersessional work (BPFs, Dynamic Coalitions, CENB). This can be best
> achieved if they are seamlessly integrated into the various activities,
> such as main sessions and workshops, where they can have speakers and
> present contributions. In that direction, the Secretariat, and the NRIs
> focal point in particular, may help build a bridge between NRIs and the
> organizers of workshops and main sessions.
>
> Of course NRIs and intersessional work initiatives may have their own
> meetings for administrative and internal collaborative purposes, which is
> something different.
>
> I don't think that reserving 12 workshop slots for the NRIs is the best
> approach to integrate them into the global IGF. Besides, this also reduces
> the number of slots we have for workshops. I remember that we are selecting
> only 80 workshops this year, while we had 100 slots last year. Allocating
> workshop slots for the NRIs does not help us solve this problem.
>
> If the NRIs want to propose thematic discussions, as in workshops, they
> may submit them as workshop proposals, as the remaining of the community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Flavio
>
>
>
> Em 14/06/2017 09:47, THOMAS-RAYNAUD Elizabeth escreveu:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Further to our exchanges in the MAG on the proposed NRI separate track and
> the concerns the community through the MAG reps have raised concerns with
> for the bigger picture of the IGF and unintended consequences of the
> solutions proposed.
>
>
>
> Carolyn and I have had a very useful discussion with Anja to hear and
> better understand what the different members of the NRI list are seeking in
> addition to the concern Chengetai and you have expressed about making NRIs
> feel valued and recognised. It was good to hear the practical items of
> interest more directly also from the side meeting we had with Sala, Wisdom,
> Segun and Susan to further understand the issues, pressure points and
> considerations.
>
>
>
> To this end, we offer the attached and inserted below alternative to the
> proposed solution for the MAG to consider in our later discussion today.
>
>
>
> We have asked the Chair and Secretariat to help ensure a robust, open
> conversation on this topic. We feel there is value and interest by many in
> discussing these options and allowing them to be fully explored by members
> of the MAG and the NRI representatives engaged. We value having Anja’s
> insight as the NRI focal point as she is well-placed to explain the desired
> goal(s).
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your open-minded consideration of this and look
> forward to discussing altogether.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *On equal footing: *An alternative approach to providing NRIs a stage to
> highlight their unique experiences without fragmenting the Internet
> Governance Forum
> Introduction and context
>
> As discussed in several IGF MAG meetings, there are concerns from some
> that there are unintended consequences for the IGF overall of continuing to
> segregate or fragment the programme by groups. This has arguably not been
> successful in the past and rather than continue in the direction of
> breaking the populations engaged in the IGF up, the MAG should be more
> proactive and creative in finding ways to address unique needs while still
> fostering the rich multistakeholder exchanges that the IGF was created for
> as per the Tunis agenda from articles 72-82.
>
> Carving out sections of the programme has already been a slippery slope.
> We’ve had DC session, BPFs, Open forums and now we are proposing NRIs be
> sectioned off into their own place rather than being fully integrated where
> they and their contribution can be most enriching to the IGF. This concern
> is not about valuing or recognising them as ‘special’ to the contrary – it
> is not wanting to lose the input they have to offer in the wider programme.
>
> After meeting with the NRI focal point to better understand what is really
> being asked for and sitting down with 4 NRI representatives attending the
> MAG to hear their goals. It is clear we agree:
>
> 1)     The NRIs are legitimate and respected. They don’t need the MAG or
> IGF global meeting to give them this
>
> 2)     They would like to benefit from the IGF global meeting to connect
> with each other and exchange best practices, ideas and experiences
>
> 3)     Individual National initiatives that put workshop requests in do
> not pass the criteria to get on the programme because they lack geographic
> diversity. Regional proposal have been more successful. So national
> initiatives interested missed the chance to organise amongst themselves
> this year to put forward workshops from more than one NI so that it could
> meet the diversity criteria and it would be good to provide an alternative
> for them if they wish to engage in content sessions like this.
>
> *The proposed approach on the table today is:*
>
> 1)     To have an NRIs main session on digital/online rights
>
> 2)     To provide 12 workshop slots for the 30 NRIs who have suggested
> they would be interested in organizing sessions and will be asked to work
> with each other so 2-3 from different regions are organising them on topics
> of interest – ‘freedom of expression’, etc.
>
> *A few of the unintended consequences:*
>
> 1)     An NRI track segregates them from the other content of the
> programme. It’s like the women’s page of the newspaper - if this track is
> for NRIs, who is the rest of the programme for?
>
> 2)     We lose their engagement in the rest. If NRIs take the time and
> spend the resources to travel but are engaged in a separate track and
> focused on contributing to their track, everyone else loses their unique
> contributions in the dialogues on the same subjects across the rest of the
> schedule.
>
> 3)     In future NRIs won’t engage in the workshop proposal process
> because they have separate track options and that is the wrong direction
> for the IGF.
>
> 4)     New entrants to IGF will find the IGF even more ‘clubby’ and
> difficult to navigate, and critics on that point will be supported in that
> assertion.
>
> 5)     Other experiments to separate groups have not proven a model of
> success yet this slippery slope is now the default solution being explored
> to each request. Next year we will have a youth IGF track and this trend
> needs rethinking.
>
> 6)     The vision of the IGF in the Tunis agenda was to bring everyone
> together on equal footing. These segregated groups go against that and
> erode that value. There should be a welcoming place for everyone INSIDE the
> IGF programme or we are failing the Tunis vision.
>
> Open forums were created to encourage governments and intergovernmental
> organizations to be involved in IGF. Yet the MAG spends a significant
> amount of time lamenting the low level of the participation of governments
> proposing IGF workshops and being engaged in the IGF – this ‘solution’
> seems far from a best practice to roll out to others.
>
> BPFs after having had their own space have just come to request to be
> plugged back into the main content sessions – which is where everyone would
> benefit most from what they have to offer – insights and a unique angle or
> contribution to the topic of discussion.
>
> Everyone should feel they belong in the IGF programme no matter where
> their own unique value contribution comes from or how it was formed and the
> MAG needs to take perhaps more care and consideration to redress this and
> ensure it is better acknowledged and appreciated.
> Proposed alternative approach
>
> 1)     NRIs use the opportunity to have a half-day session on day zero to
> meet and discuss amongst themselves on coordination issues and sharing of
> process topics.
>
> 2)     Also/or NRIs consider having a daily session off schedule to meet
> and discuss or coordinate (Since the first IGF business has a daily
> briefing just ahead of the schedule using a workshop room for this – to
> discuss issues, participation, highlight activities, etc)
>
> 3)     The main session proposal be considered not as an NRI session but
> as a session on digital/online rights and be selected in the mix for its
> value as a content contribution Everyone can benefit from even if the
> proposers are NRIs.
>
> 4)     The list of topics that the 30 NRIs were interested in doing
> workshops on subjects look within the approved sessions for the topic of
> interest and the workshop organizers be invited to have one or more NRI
> contributions inside that discussion. This could even be highlighted – *NRI
> Nigeria and NRI Colombia case contribution* in the discussion description
>
> 5)     The workshop process be started earlier or a call to NRIs to think
> ahead on workshops for 2018 be made and during their coordination meetings
> they already talk about this for the year ahead.
>
> 6)     The IGF Secretariat arrange for an NRI presentation at the first
> IGF consultation and MAG for 2018 to have their insights inform the MAG
> ahead of any discussion on theme and workshops.
>
> 7)     The trend of pulling these discussions back into the background
> and presenting them already formed rather than opening discussion and
> exchange early on them in the MAG be shifted, so the MAG can fulfil its
> role with full insight and information from the sources.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing listIgfmaglist at intgovforum.orghttp://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
Director
Pasifika Nexus
P.O Box 17862
Suva
*FIJI*

Cell: +679 7656770
Tel: +679 3362003 <+679%20336%202003>
E: sala at pasifikanexus.nu
Website: www.pasifikanexus.nu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170614/c140abf5/attachment.htm>