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

Michael Oghia mike.oghia at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 12:12:17 EST 2017

Hi Izumi and Sumon,

I couldn't agree more with the three suggestions you provided. Indeed, they
are relevant to all of the BPFs, and I hope each of three areas you both so
eloquently described can be built on this year and beyond.

The only point I would add is a supplement to your second point. While they
aren't NRIs, network operator groups (NOGs) are also key fora for
collaboration and outreach.

I also strongly support the idea that focal points need not be MAG members,
especially if there is a topic that requires certain skillsets or

Thank you both as well as Wim once again for the outstanding work you've
done both in 2016 as well as 2015. As an active contributor to the BPF in
both instances, I can absolutely attest to your professionalism, knowledge,
and commitment to the process -- it is much appreciated.

My warmest regards,

Michael J. Oghia
iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager
Independent #netgov consultant & editor

Belgrade, Serbia
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> FYI. This is the reflection on IGF2016 BPF-IPv6 we have submitted to the
> MAG mailing list as the Coordinators of BPF-IPv6.
> Izumi
> -------- 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
> IPv6-BPF.
> 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
> outcome.
> Thank you for your attention and wishing all the best for the
> continued success of BPF activities, if the MAG agrees on its
> continuity.
> Best Regards,
> Sumon Ahmed Sabir, Izumi Okutani
> MAG Coordinators of the 2016 BPF on IPv6
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
> Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_
> intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170223/06d04a97/attachment.html>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list