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

Tue Jun 20 02:08:55 EDT 2017

Apologies, email was sent by mistake :) 

Aida Mahmutović

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Jun 2017, at 08:07, Aida Mahmutovic <aidamahmutovic.ba at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi sure that's perfect. Just use the number: +387 62 99 50 66.
> 
> 
> Aida Mahmutović
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 20 Jun 2017, at 06:08, avri doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> Where there seems to be a difference of opinion is in how the goal can best be achieved in the program makeup itself and, therefore, support for the broader IGF community discussions over this and future IGFs.   My own feeling is that it is a more integrated approach if the NRIs (and other) contributions are woven in to the fabric of the week rather than in a discrete track of workshops, but I certainly understand that there are differing views on that and welcome the discourse.
>> 
>> I agree with doing some work to weave a few topical threads through the
>> NRIs, when they are are willing.  Didnt we actually do something like
>> that last year?
>> 
>> I also think there is value in them discussing successes and problems
>> they have and are looking for feedback on. Or if an NRI is having issues
>> with formation, processes, its multistakeholder nature or other issues,
>> I think the NRI session offer a perfect place to air the issues and get
>> advice on how to proceed.  NRIs are a crucible for the modalities and we
>> ought to make sure we all learn from them.  They may even teach us how
>> to make workshops varied, scintillating, and impactful experiences.
>> 
>>> The idea of the NRIs using Day 0 as an opportunity for a coordinating/networking session is appealing to me because it could provide for substantive dialogue and best practice exchange that would be more enduring throughout the week.
>> 
>> I thought day 0 was the host's day.  Though perhaps now that the hosts
>> are scheduling main sessions, it is appropriate for the MAG to speak of
>> what happens on days 0. My main concern is twofold: at the moment by
>> putting them in day 0 we sort of relegate them to outside the IGF and I
>> think we should be bringing them closer, and otherwise if successful day
>> 0 could become the defacto day 1 and (like some other organization we
>> know well) we will start having days -1, -2 and -3.  We would also not
>> be decreasing the load on attendees but increasing it.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> I fully support the IGF MAG, this one or the next, initiating IGF
>> community discussion on this subject.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 16-Jun-17 15:37, Franz, Liesyl I wrote:
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> Avri, you make a good point about the feedback we've received on the number of workshops. I think part of that also has to do with the number of things people want to go to and are frustrated when there are conflicts in the timing of interesting discussions (which makes capturing the content all the more important)!  But, point well taken.
>>> 
>>> On the NRIs, it's clear we are all in agreement about the value and success of the NRIs and the goal of incorporating their bottom-up and geographically diverse discussions on Internet governance topics into the global discussions at the IGF (I agree with your point on integrating the other intersessional work as well).  I regret if my comments came across or were characterized as anything else.
>>> 
>>> Where there seems to be a difference of opinion is in how the goal can best be achieved in the program makeup itself and, therefore, support for the broader IGF community discussions over this and future IGFs.   My own feeling is that it is a more integrated approach if the NRIs (and other) contributions are woven in to the fabric of the week rather than in a discrete track of workshops, but I certainly understand that there are differing views on that and welcome the discourse.
>>> 
>>> The idea of the NRIs using Day 0 as an opportunity for a coordinating/networking session is appealing to me because it could provide for substantive dialogue and best practice exchange that would be more enduring throughout the week.  If the NRI-proposed collaborative sessions were actually part of that opportunity, then, there would be more room in the program for topical/thematic workshops in which both planned and spontaneous NRIs participation could occur, including the new session formats and hot topics as they get folded in.  I note that there was broad support for an NRI main session in the MAG, and it would be another opportunity for this kind of input - as well as any of the other main sessions in which the NRI's voices are included.  Given the maturity of the NRIs and the level of interaction among the NRI community, I believe there is time for navigating that kind of thing in the intervening months before the IGF in Geneva, but I defer to the group and offer these only as ideas for consideration.
>>> 
>>> Again, I truly believe that we all have the same goal in mind, maybe just differing ideas on how to get there.  However it plays out, I look forward to hearing from the NRIs in the IGF in December.  And, I appreciated having the conversation and deliberations in the MAG and would welcome that interaction as a tradition.
>>> 
>>> Safe travels home to all,
>>> Liesyl
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Liesyl Franz
>>> Senior Policy Advisor
>>> Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues
>>> U.S. Department of State
>>> O: (202) 647-3919
>>> M: (202) 297-1099
>>> FranzLI at state.gov
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of avri doria
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:46 PM
>>> To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] On equal footing: an alternative proposal for NRIs at the IGF
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I am less concerned with having fewer workshops.  One of the pieces of advice we have gotten in most every consultation is to offer fewer workshops.  And while I also believe we should use every room and ever bit of time available for some aspect of the IGF work, I believe a more equitable sharing of the 'workshop' real estate among the intersessionals, the DCs, the NRIs, fora, and the workshops is warranted. I am less supportive of fora as they are often just advertisement opportunities, but I understand they are important to some.
>>> 
>>> I see the NRI work as one of the more important successes of the IGF and something that needs to be fostered. I think that allowing the NRI sessions where they can share some of the work and issues worked on as multistakeholder groups is as important, if not more so, than any of the workshops we are considering.  I see the spread of the multistakeholder method of working on IG issues to the many nations and regions that hold NRI meetings as among the most important things the IGF is achieving and thus support them having session slots where they can share and the global IGF can participate in their sharing.  The NRIs are also our best method of insuring geographical diversity and of insuring that the perspective of all interested countries is put into the mix.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>> Official
>>> UNCLASSIFIED
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org