[Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG Ecosystem-Update

[Subi Chaturvedi]

Thank Bill. Its good to have specific contact details.

When we posted the original list it didn't have 28 names but did have about
21.

Additionally we sought inputs on policy questions key threads topic and
framing.

We wrote multiple emails asking for inputs on that list. Suggested thread.
I do not want to clutter this list with trails but you would recall them
since you have actively contributed to them. Initial invited to heads of
organisations were only sent out keeping their calendars in mind, after
multiple discussion and a basic agreement that these were indeed the
processes which we would like to see represented. Since we had no clarity/
agreement on the format we didn't reach out to any stakeholders.

Specific inputs always help. Just as yours are doing now. On the virtual
call we then requested a timeline from the secretariat. Which was then
given for all the mains.  A fresh call for inputs was circulated again. And
you have been most helpful in compiling names and keeping our memory
refreshed. But we ageing sought specific recommendations. Different
volunteers will recall. Those who sent the names with co-ordinates have
been invited. Which is how I see all the other sessions working. And some
not.

And you're right, none of us have the time to wrest inputs out from each
other. Since we're all responsible adults here who are equally committed
for a common objective.

What would be of tremendous help is an indication of a reasonable time that
one should wait or an indication of an exact time frame that should elapse
within reason to assume that everyone is in agreement. Since we do have a
program to deliver. I completely agree that the process should be inclusive
and should be standardised for all the mains.

It would help us make it better for next year's IGF as well. And I do
believe there's a review on. The number of times a call was put out for
each main session. People who contributed and how. Let's also do a self
review as members of the MAG while we're doing one for the IGF as we speak.

Or would you prefer individual emails be sent to all the volunteers ? we'd
be happy to do that as well. As we have done in the past.

It's voluntary working and we're all doing the best we can.

Regards

Subi




On 8 August 2014 15:29, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Subi
>
> On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Bill I am glad that we are in agreement then. All your suggestions have
> duly incorporated.  And that is indeed the process followed. Respectfully,
> I disagree with your statement that any attempt is being made to do this in
> a manner which is top down.
>
> And it is unfair to constantly claim otherwise.
>
>
> I have never characterized it as top down. I accurately described the
> process being followed, about which others have expressed concern as well.
>
> All of us have multiple things to do and we're all doing this voluntarily.
>
>
> Yes and it has taken quite a lot of my time to try to get information
> about this session organized and divulged in a manner that would allow the
> group to know what’s going on and participate in the decision making.  I
> don’t actually have time for this and shouldn’t have had to do it.
>
> Yet we have neither discouraged any member from contributing nor have we
> ignored any inputs. I am aware of your immense expertise and contribution
> in this space. And we're all still learning. But this doesn't help.
>
>
> I think it has, clearly. When I sent my first message asking what’s going
> on on July 8 there’d been no word from you to the list since April 16, and
> apparently you’d already invited speakers without any group consensus that
> yes, let’s invite those speakers.  Now we are finally getting some group
> discussion, although I suspect the unfortunately needed procedural debate
> may be dampening enthusiasms.  Hopefully we can now transcend those and
> complete the panels etc. in a collaborative manner.
>
> All constructive inputs are welcome. Like the IGF we do not want the IGF
> MAG to remain a decision making platform for a select few and by a select
> few.
>
>
> Precisely, and this is why we do MAG+ planning groups for the main
> sessions.
>
> This would only result in a chilling effect for new MAG members, who are
> trying their best to contribute and create. It has been a constant effort
> to divest the aura of a club.
>
> We have sent out multiple calls for inputs and suggestions, invites to
> join calls. And when inputs have been received they have all been
> incorporated and responded to. You asked us to stop inviting speakers after
> our initial calls for specific names remained unresponded to, we did
> exactly that.  Sent out a fresh call again for inputs.
>
> The people you have listed are indeed the people who have been approached
> as speakers.
>
>
> My suggestions are just my suggestions, maybe someone here would prefer
> alternatives.  So the right process would be to ask if people agree with
> xyz and if it’s yes or simply no disagreements expressed after an interval
> we say ok let’s invite.
>
> Geoff Huston from the technical community is a new and welcome addition. I
> do not have his contact details would be grateful if either you or Paul can
> connect us with him.
>
>
> Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>
>
>
> You will recall my multiple emails on this list for specific inputs and
> threads and for seeking contact details including email ids and contact
> details of all the speakers, volunteers are recommending.
>
> Every single suggestion has been incorporated received from all MAG
> volunteers working on this session.
>
>
> Yes, the list of names I compiled from peoples’ suggestions and sent
> yesterday had 28 names, not counting those who were confirmed previously.
>  But obviously we can’t accommodate them all, so group discussion and
> choices are needed.
>
>
> Jeremy's emails seem to be bouncing back. Would be grateful if you can
> provide us an alternative mail. We have reached out to him multiple times
> at      jeremy at ciroap.org
>
>
> He works at EFF, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
>
>
> Thank you again for actively contributing on this session. I look forward
> to any inputs that you might have further to make this session better and
> more meaningful.
>
>
> Thanks, your contributions are appreciated too.  I am just asking that we
> follow the usual procedures, full stop.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 August 2014 13:56, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Subi
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This year as MAG members we then volunteered through a doodle poll for
>> the mains on which we wished to contribute more actively than others.
>>
>> Every session then had ranging from 1- 2 and sometimes 4 co-leads from
>> amongst MAG members.
>>
>> With about 16-18 volunteers per session.
>>
>> Over several emails on the MAG list and individual calls and emails,
>> inputs have been contributed. Every main has then gone on to
>> organically synthesise these inputs. Some through a single mail and others
>> through a series of continuous engagements. The water is being
>> carried across different mains who have volunteered to coherently
>> assimilate inputs received.
>>
>> Once a call for inputs is put out regarding specific requests the
>> co-leads generally wait within reason for specific inputs and specific
>> threads and then for the purpose of delivery and operationalisation of
>> actual logistical work  move the work along.
>>
>>
>> The problem here is what 'move the work along' means.  With respect to
>> inviting panelists, the consistent, standard practice of the MAG over the
>> past decade has been that the lead facilitators keep a running track of the
>> list of suggested names (actually, I had to step in and do that here), pose
>> choices to the group, people weigh in and the group reaches consensus, and
>> then the facilitators reach out to speakers and keep the list continuously
>> informed as to the status—who’s accepted or not, what decision might need
>> to be made accordingly. No collective decision to change these
>> long-standing transparent and inclusive procedures was taken.  But it seems
>> that your model is that people provide input and then the two first moving
>> facilitators go off and make the decisions, often informing the group only
>> when pestered for answers.  This is really just not how it works, sorry.
>>
>> There are a number of outstanding choices to be made in filling out the
>> panels.  Suggestions have been made by participants.  Let’s please follow
>> the long-standing practice in making decisions from here.
>>
>> I reiterate for reference my suggestions of Jeanette and Samantha
>> Dickinson as moderators, Larry Strickling (govt) and Geoff Huston (TC) for
>> the ecosystem panel, and Jeremy Malcolm or Adam Peake (CS) for the IGF
>> panel.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140808/9b466ff9/attachment.htm>