[Evolintgov2014] Query: [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG Ecosystem-Update
William Drake
wjdrake at gmail.com
Fri Aug 8 09:13:56 EDT 2014
Hi Virat
On Aug 8, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Bhatia, Virat <virat.bhatia at intl.att.com> wrote:
> Dear Members of the MAG,
>
> With regard to MAG members as panelists on mains sessions:
>
> (i) This subject has been discussed a lot, a few weeks ago. We all went back to our notes and everyone’s notes confirmed that in the February meeting, limits were discussed regarding MAG members on workshops. No explicit discussion took place with regards to MAG members on main sessions.
I’m not sure why we’re back here again, but as I replied to you on 23 July: The Feb. report states, "MAG members will not submit proposals but institutions associated with the MAG member are not prohibited.” And members know to recuse themselves from evaluating workshops they’re speaking in. But I don’t recall a discussion or agreement about limiting MAG members’ participation in workshops to 3. Insofar as there are probably somewhere upwards of 500 workshop speakers it’s not clear what the problem would be with someone’s name occurring 4 times instead of 3 etc. I would think the point is for members to exercise prudence and not be all over the place, as has often occurred in the past.
I don’t know who went back to what notes thereafter and found what but the report summarizes our formal decisions.
>
> (ii) Janis finally intervened and agreed to a proposal of a maximum of 3 workshops and 1 main session for any MAG member for 2014. This was also important because we have several first time MAG members who must get experience.
What Janis said was
On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:17 AM, karklinsj at gmail.com wrote:
> At the same time I am not in favor of a blanket ban of participation of MAG members in the substantive discussions, especially if invited by workshop organizers based on merits (expertise, experience, representation).
> Your proposal (1/3 max) might be a good indication for MAG members with understanding that the self-restrain principle would prevail and the MAG member would accept a role, especially in the main session, if no other speakers/moderators are available.
I did not take “might be a good indication" as a hard and fast agreement that MAG members now cannot be on more than three workshops. I don’t think people who’ve accepted speaking invitations unaware of this interpretation should now be forced to renege on their acceptances based on variable recollections of discussions, especially discussions that didn’t happen on the list where all can participate. As Janis said, we should exercise self restraint, especially for main sessions. If someone is really optimally placed to play a role and there’s no better alternative, fine.
Best
Bill
>
> So as far as I know that is the mandate for 2014. Unless anyone wants to change it at this stage (3 weeks away from the IGF), which would mean having to recast the main sessions, to suit the new mandate.
>
> Some believe that the role of a moderator is prominent. Others believe the role of a speaker is prominent. This also very cultural. In India for example, moderators are seen not to be a big deal since they are prohibited form expressing their views. In other spaces, moderators are chairmen of the session. In our main session, we have chairmen provided for each main session from the Turkish Government. So there are 3 distinct roles – Chairman, Moderator(s) and Speakers.
>
> I think if we can agree to Janis’s final prescription of 3 workshops + 1 main session for any MAG member, overlaid with the suggestion “where relevant”, we should be able to move ahead.
>
> Let individual MAG members decide on what type of restraint they wish to follow.
>
> As for disclosure, I am on only 2 workshops and have refused a request to appear on best practices main session citing my role as a MAG member. On the other hand we are proud to invite 2 voices from the MAG, and one young lady from Fiji, as a remote moderator - all new voices.
>
> Regards
>
> Virat Bhatia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evolintgov2014 [mailto:evolintgov2014-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 5:10 PM
> To: Subi Chaturvedi; William Drake
> Cc: Fiona Alexander; evolintgov2014; MAG-public
> Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] Query: [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG Ecosystem-Update
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 08.08.2014 13:32, schrieb Subi Chaturvedi:
>
>> SERVING MAG MEMBERS as panelists on Main sessions-
>
>>
>
>> Can we get clarity on this?
>
>
>
> During the first years, when I was on the MAG it was considered inappropriate for MAG members to be on the panel of main sessions. Some of us served as moderators though. With the turnover of the MAG, this sense of inappropriateness vanished and for the following one or two years there were many MAG members on main sessions. I think the ban was then renewed.
>
>
>
> Generally I think it is difficult to invite individual MAG members to main sessions but tell others that they should not do this.
>
>
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
>>
>
>> What is it that, we're following now?
>
>>
>
>> Is there a blanket ban on any serving MAG member being a panelist on
>
>> the MAIN sessions or are we making exceptions where relevant?
>
>>
>
>> What is the sense of the group on this?
>
>>
>
>> warmest
>
>>
>
>> Subi
>
>> ----
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On 8 August 2014 16:54, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>
>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Certainly Bill. As you would recall that's precisely what I have
>
>> suggested. We plan to do that by C.O.B. today.
>
>>
>
>> And as far as I am aware Ron hasn't been invited, though he has been
>
>> on the original list from day 1. I do not have his contact details.
>
>>
>
>> As far as Amb. Sepulveda is concerned , he was proposed by Marilyn
>
>> after I believe a discussion with USG, she will be able to fill us
>
>> in with more details. I did point out that he is on the access panel.
>
>>
>
>> I have repeatedly asked for contact details of speakers proposed.
>
>> And that helps.
>
>>
>
>> The MAG list is still useful for this discussion for procedural
>
>> inputs and institutional memory . Also many times people not
>
>> subscribed to the list have made excellent contributions, so it's
>
>> best to keep every one in the loop.
>
>>
>
>> warmest
>
>>
>
>> Subi
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On 8 August 2014 16:49, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Hi again Subi
>
>>
>
>> To facilitate the discussion, could you perhaps send to
>
>> <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>
>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>> the list of people you
>
>> and Marilyn have confirmed for the two panels to date, along
>
>> with the list of names still under discussion (i.e. an
>
>> update/correction of what I sent yesterday, below)? I don’t
>
>> recall the discussion of Danny Sepulveda, which is why Fiona and
>
>> I were talking about Larry Strickling. Obviously we can’t put
>
>> two senior US government people in the same session. Someone
>
>> also just told me in a side conversation that Rob Deibert had
>
>> been invited. I didn’t know that either. So please, if we
>
>> could just synch files and keep a running up to date tab of
>
>> who’s confirmed and who’s in play for the group to consider,
>
>> that’d be really helpful.
>
>>
>
>> I also agree with the suggestion that the MAG should perhaps set
>
>> down a fixed procedure for how main sessions are to be managed.
>
>> Let’s avoid any future unnecessary bits of confusion or
>
>> disagreement about how we proceed with these. If defined
>
>> procedures are needed for workshop evaluation and selection,
>
>> surely they’d be advisable for main sessions as well.
>
>>
>
>> Thanks much,
>
>>
>
>> Bill
>
>>
>
>> PS: While the procedural discussion is of relevance to all MAG
>
>> members, when we get to going back and forth on speakers we
>
>> should probably spare everyone and keep it
>
>> on <evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org
>
>> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Aug 8, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Subi Chaturvedi
>
>> <subichaturvedi at gmail.com <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com%20%3cmailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Fiona I was informed by Marilyn after consultation with
>
>>> Andrew from the state department that Ambassador Sepulveda
>
>>> will be making an intervention from USG. He's been
>
>>> coordinating this with Marilyn.
>
>>>
>
>>> Would you recommend two speakers? Larry makes perfect sense in
>
>>> the first half about evolution of the Internet Ecosystem on
>
>>> the IANA transition. If the others are in agreement than your
>
>>> help in approaching him would be very welcome.
>
>>>
>
>>> Regards
>
>>>
>
>>> Subi
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> On 7 August 2014 16:24, Fiona Alexander
>
>>> <FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov%20%3cmailto:FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov>>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>> I too am a bit lost but note that Larry Strickling is
>
>>> listed as a possible speaker. Tony knowledge NTIA has
>
>>> not been contacted regarding this request. If there is a
>
>>> desire to have a US Government speaker please let me know
>
>>> ASAP and we can find one.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>
>>> From: William Drake __
>
>>> Date:08/07/2014 6:27 AM (GMT-05:00)
>
>>> To: evolintgov2014 __
>
>>> Cc: MAG-public __
>
>>> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] [Evolintgov2014] IGF Main
>
>>> Session - Evolution of IG Ecosystem-Update
>
>>>
>
>>> Hi
>
>>>
>
>>> I must admit I’m rather lost here, how are we proceeding
>
>>> with this session? I’d previously compiled and sent a
>
>>> few times the list of all names people had suggested as
>
>>> possible speakers on the two panels. The last version was
>
>>> sent to the mail list on 25 July. Since then there’s been
>
>>> no collective discussion about options and who might be
>
>>> optimal on which panel. There have been a references to
>
>>> bilateral private conversations, a few requests by MAG
>
>>> members for speaking slots for themselves or their
>
>>> colleagues (which is a bit awkward), and a few
>
>>> confirmations that people invited previously have agreed
>
>>> to participate. I’m sorry for being old fashioned but all
>
>>> previous main session planning groups I’ve participated in
>
>>> over the years worked in a more transparent and
>
>>> participatory way and got to consensus more quickly, so I
>
>>> just don’t know how to track this one’s progress. It
>
>>> would be good if we could move this forward to a solid
>
>>> conclusion on a consensual basis. We are behind schedule...
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> *Session title:* As suggested previously, "Main/Focus
>
>>> Session: Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role
>
>>> of the IGF - Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU,
>
>>> other fora” seems a bit awkward, we might want to lose the
>
>>> subtitle, unless we’re going to expanding it to cover
>
>>> everything happening in the wider environment, e.g. NM, NM
>
>>> Initiative, etc etc.
>
>>>
>
>>> *Descriptive text:* what’s in the program paper seems dated.
>
>>>
>
>>> *Speakers/Moderators:* [is the below still current?]
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> *Panel 1: Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem**
>
>>> [including per Janis the NM Initiative]
>
>>>
>
>>> Moderator: TBD
>
>>>
>
>>> Panelists:
>
>>>
>
>>> 1. Fadi Chehade (ICANN) [Confirmed (Bahar)]
>
>>> 2. Hamadoun Toure’ (ITU) [Invited, TBC]
>
>>> 3. Milton Mueller (Syracuse U.) [Confirmed (Subi)]
>
>>>
>
>>> *Panel 2: The Role of the IGF*
>
>>>
>
>>> 1. Kathy Brown (ISOC) [Confirmed (Constance)]
>
>>> 2. Vint Cerf (Google) [Invited, TBC]
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Moderator options suggested so far (leaving off MAG
>
>>> members for now):
>
>>>
>
>>> * Jeanette Hofmann (CS)
>
>>> * Sam Dickinson (TC)
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Panelist options suggested so far (generally leaving off
>
>>> MAG members for now):
>
>>>
>
>>> Government/IGO:
>
>>>
>
>>> * Neelie Kroes, EC [confirmed (Subi)…for which panel?]
>
>>> * Rafał Trzaskowski (Poland, confirmed availability to
>
>>> Igor…for panel 1?)
>
>>> * Robert Shlegel (Russia, MAG, confirms himself)
>
>>>
>
>>> * Norberto Berner (Argentina)
>
>>> * Benedicto Fonseca (Brazil)
>
>>> * Larry Strickling (US)
>
>>> * Ed Vaizy (UK)
>
>>> * Mohammed AlQurashi (KSA)
>
>>> * Alice Munyua (AU)
>
>>>
>
>>> Private Sector:
>
>>>
>
>>> * Danil Kerimi (WEF)
>
>>> * Philipp Grabensee (Affilias)
>
>>> * Zahid Jamil (Jamil & Jamil)
>
>>> * Phil Rushton (BT)
>
>>> * Jimson Olufuye (WITSA)
>
>>>
>
>>> Technical Community:
>
>>>
>
>>> * Jari Arkko (IETF)
>
>>> * Tim Berners Lee (W3C)
>
>>> * Virgilio Almeida (Brazil/NM)
>
>>> * Byron Holland (CIRA)
>
>>> * Geoff Huston (APNIC)
>
>>> * Adiel Akplogan (AFRINIC)
>
>>>
>
>>> Civil Society:
>
>>>
>
>>> * Jeremy Malcolm (EFF)
>
>>> * Stephanie Perrin (UT)
>
>>> * Wolfgang Kleinwächter (ICANN)
>
>>> * Nnenna Nwakanma (WWWF)
>
>>> * Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo)
>
>>> * Ron Deibert (Citizen Lab)
>
>>> * Marilia Maciel (FGV)
>
>>> * Adam Peake (Glocom)
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Does anyone have input on how we can complete the line-ups?
>
>>>
>
>>> Bill
>
>>>
>
>>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Subi Chaturvedi
>
>>> <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>
>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Thank you Igor. Will follow your lead.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> regards
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Subi
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> On 1 August 2014 13:51, Igor Ostrowski
>
>>>> <igor at ostrowski.waw.pl <mailto:igor at ostrowski.waw.pl<mailto:igor at ostrowski.waw.pl%20%3cmailto:igor at ostrowski.waw.pl>>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Subi,
>
>>>>
>
>>>> apologies for the delay. Here is the info:
>
>>>>
>
>>>> /Minister of Administration and Digitalization,
>
>>>> Poland///
>
>>>>
>
>>>> /Doctor of political sciences, academic lecturer
>
>>>> specializing in European affairs. From 2009, Member
>
>>>> of European Parliament, where he dealt with the
>
>>>> implementation of EU treaties and European Digital
>
>>>> Agenda, including e-commerce and privacy issues.
>
>>>> Since November 2013, Minister of Administration and
>
>>>> Digitalization. Thanks to his efforts, issues
>
>>>> surrounding //Internet governance and advocacy of the
>
>>>> //multistakeholder/ /approach/ /have been treated
>
>>>> with top priority by the Polish government. Active
>
>>>> participation in the NetMundial conference and
>
>>>> creation of IGF Polska are a few examples of his
>
>>>> recent activities./
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> It's best to contact him thru the Head of his
>
>>>> Cabinet: Joanna.Popielawska at mac.gov.pl<mailto:Joanna.Popielawska at mac.gov.pl>
>
>>>> <mailto:Joanna.Popielawska at mac.gov.pl>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Best
>
>>>> Igor
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Subi Chaturvedi
>
>>>> <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>
>>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>> Many thanks Igor.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Pls share a brief profile and email co-ordinates.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Collecting it for all the speakers.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Regards
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Subi
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> On 30 Jul 2014 15:40, "Igor Ostrowski"
>
>>>>> <igor at ostrowski.waw.pl
>
>>>>> <mailto:igor at ostrowski.waw.pl>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Rafał Traskowski - Gov Stakeholder Group (PL
>
>>>>> Minister of Administration and Digitization) hs
>
>>>>> confirmed his availability as well
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Best
>
>>>>>> Igor
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Subi Chaturvedi
>
>>>>> <subichaturvedi at gmail.com
>
>>>>> <mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Two senior colleagues Mrs. Kroes (EU)
>
>>>>> -Stakeholder group-Gov.
>
>>>>>>> And Milton Mueller(Academia/Civil Society) have
>
>>>>> confirmed their availability in addition to Ms.
>
>>>>> Kathy Brown *ISOC)-; Technical Community.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Colleagueas on the MAG do please confirm if your
>
>>>>> organisation's participating. You've been copied on
>
>>>>> all mails which were sent out previously.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> There's a call scheduled between the two co-leads
>
>>>>> and Mathew and Markus have also provided inputs
>
>>>>> along with substantive inputs from Constance, Vlada,
>
>>>>> Bill, Paul, Olga, Ana and others. Not sure if Markus
>
>>>>> will be on the call today but we have a wide pool of
>
>>>>> options from accross stakeholder groups and some
>
>>>>> names for moderators to choose from.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> All of them have been metaculously documented
>
>>>>> across several emails.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Your inputs have been most conducive.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Today there will be discussion further on
>
>>>>> refining format and policy questions.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Suggestions pertaining to :
>
>>>>>>> 1. Exact nos. Of questions to be adressed, so
>
>>>>> that we keep maximum time for participation and
>
>>>>> interventions from the floor and non facilitators.
>
>>>>>>> 2. Format:
>
>>>>>>> A-no moderator
>
>>>>>>> B-4 moderators
>
>>>>>>> C-deep well with identified interventions for 3
>
>>>>> mins each and then abt 40 minute long interventions
>
>>>>> from different stakeholder groups for each of the
>
>>>>> two halves. Total of 80 interventions.
>
>>>>>>> D. A general chair some disucussants and then
>
>>>>> open mic with audience interventions only
>
>>>>>>> E. A roundtable with concentric circles
>
>>>>>>> D. An open space
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> 3.Contact details of speakers recommended by you
>
>>>>>>> (We hope to send out invites by the end of this
>
>>>>> week, since inputs have been received on session
>
>>>>> format the moratorium imposed on inviting speakers
>
>>>>> can I believe be lifted to give them enough notice
>
>>>>> to block their calenders)
>
>>>>>>> (Olga I have your recommendations down) and some
>
>>>>> are self nominations. So we have them too.
>
>>>>>>> Need Patrick's, Bill's and Igor's.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> 4. Some Govt. And CS groups in particular are
>
>>>>> travelling with youth volunteers. Can they join us
>
>>>>> too for the session? Would they like to nominate
>
>>>>> some? Participants from the Dynamic Coalition on
>
>>>>> core Internet values will have some.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Any other inputs.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> If anybody else wishes to join the call, please
>
>>>>> feel free and contact Ms. Marilyn Cade to join in.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> We'll be updating the list soon.
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Regards
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> Subi
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>>>>>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>
>>>>>>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>
>>>>> <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>
>>>>>>>
>
>>>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>
>>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org<mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>
>>>
>
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.o
>
>>> rg
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>
>>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
>>> <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
>>>
>
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovfor
>
>>> um.org
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>
>> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforu
>
>> m.org
>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Evolintgov2014 mailing list
>
> Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
>
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org
> <winmail.dat>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140808/da52fa2e/attachment.htm>
More information about the Evolintgov2014
mailing list