[Bp_ipv6] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF2016 BPF-IGF Reflection

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Feb 22 04:18:02 EST 2017

FYI. This is the reflection on IGF2016 BPF-IPv6 we have submitted to the MAG mailing list as the Coordinators of BPF-IPv6.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF2016 BPF-IGF Reflection
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:58:37 +0900
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
To: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>

Dear Chengetai, IGF secretariat, MAG colleagues,

We would like to provide our reflection on IGF2016 as Coordinators of

Firstly, we would like to thank the IGF secretariat for the great
support provided in facilitating online discussions, through the
dedicated mailing list and regular teleconferences.

We also found an opportunity for face to face discussions with a
dedicated session for each BPF, as a valuable opportunity,to share key
messages built on by the online work, and hear direct inputs from
participants, before finalizing the output document. We hope this
practice continues for future BPF activities.

In addition, we would like to underline that the support provided by
the IGF Consultant, Wim Degezelle has been indispensable to our group,
as in 2015. We truly appreciate his dedication and flexibilities in
providing us with all possible support and helpful suggestions within
his role, in producing a good output document.

Based on our experience with the support from the IGF secretariat, we
have three observations/suggestions for future BPF activities.

1) Collaboration with existing organisations/communities with the area
    of expertise on the topic

Participation is always be welcome to anyone with interest in the
topic. At the same time, for the output document to be fact based and
sufficiently useful with expertise knowledge, it is a must to engage
experts in contributing contents and reviewing the document.

In case of IPv6-BPF, we have reached out to RIRs, who have introduced
us to valuable volunteers, outreach to their communities in collect
case studies, as well as reaching out to experts.  Relevant
organisation/community may differ by topic but it has certainly
greatly helped the work of IPv6-BPF efforts, with expertise review on
the contents, and being accommodating to other participants at the
same time.

In addition, it may not be a must for all the Coordinator to be a MAG
member, in case subject matter expert is not available in the MAG that
year (This is a general observation and not about IPv6 BPF in 2016).

2) Collaboration with NRIs

NRIs are great source in collecting case studies across different
regions, and receiving contents for the output document with regional
perspective, as well as raising local awareness on each BPF
activities.  We were pleased to see a suggestion by the NRI group, to
welcome updates from BPFs, and a channel to present the work of the
BPFs as a resource for those at the national and regional level who
are seeking information on the topics.

In addition to this, we would like to suggest one more step forward,
learning from the activity of BPF-Gender and Access, where they have
organised a session across various regional IGFs.

IPv6-BPF organised a session on IPv6 at APrIGF, which was a great
opportunity to hear valuable inputs face to face from the participants
in the region who do not attend global IGF, which we have reflected in
our output document. However, we were only able to submit a proposal
and organise a session at APrIGF. Advanced planning at the beginning
of the BPF activity may have helped us plan our resources and allocate
speakers for more regional IGFs.

With this, perhaps one way rIGF coordinators may be able to help,
possibly under coordination in the NRI group, is to share with the
BPFs, key dates of program submission and their regional IGF events,
as a reference for BPF to consider submission of their topic to
rIGFs. Of course, the decision of submission should be left up to each
BPF based on their needs, and each rIGF is left up to their decision,
according to their defined process, whether or not to accept
submission of the workshop proposal from BPFs.

3) Outreach of BPF output

We would like to raise the need for proactive outreach for the output
document, for the output document to be truly be effective and be
recognised of its practical value.  Face to face opportunities to
share such work is a good way in receiving attention and getting
across key messages of BPF documents, as people often do not read the
document or taken in key messages just from reading the document.

In sharing output of IPv6 BPF from 2016, our BPF group is working on
outreach activities, such as through blogs, and presentation
opportunities at other fora, with support from volunteers.

In addition to these efforts, if the IGF secretariat would be able to
share any opportunity at relevant forum to outreach our work that the
secretariat is aware of, we would certainly appreciate to be able to
share our work.  For example, accomodating a slot at the WSIS forum in
2016 has provided great outreach opportunity for IGF2015 IPv6-BPF

Thank you for your attention and wishing all the best for the
continued success of BPF activities, if the MAG agrees on its

Best Regards,

Sumon Ahmed Sabir, Izumi Okutani
MAG Coordinators of the 2016 BPF on IPv6

Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list