[IGFmaglist] [igf_members] IGF Reform Proposals

Sat Oct 19 10:25:41 EDT 2013

Great idea Fiona!

Angelic

*Angelic Caroline Alihusain-del Castilho*
*POB 3036
**Wanica**
*
*Suriname*

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Fiona Alexander
<FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov>wrote:

>  It seems there is some sensitivity to the MAG as the MAG discussing and
> proposing improvements, enhancements, reforms, etc. given it's narrow
> mandate/role when the IGF was first called for in the Tunis Agenda. It's
> also not particularly open or transparent for this small group to do this
> alone.
>
> Patrick offers some good topics for discussion though. Perhaps we can take
> advantage of his effort and ask him (and others) to present ideas in the
> open mic session on Friday. This would have the benefit of being open to
> others and the discussion could be summarised into a report and then shared
> via the IGF website.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Fiona
>
> ------------------------------
>  *From*: Igfmaglist <igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org>
> *To*: Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com>; Chris Disspain <
> ceo at auda.org.au>
> *Cc*: igfmag <igf_members at intgovforum.org>; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <
> igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> *Sent*: Sat Oct 19 08:20:25 2013
>
> *Subject*: Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF Reform Proposals
>
>  Patrick, Chris, et al,
>
>
>
> I agree that these issues should be discussed, and think that it would be
> a missed opportunity if we (not necessarily as MAG if that's not in our
> mandate, but as broader community) did not take them on while in Bali.
>
>
>
> I support the idea of organizing a session on this topic, or at least an
> open forum.
>
>
>
> Sanja
>
>
>
> Sanja Tatic Kelly
>
> Project Director, Freedom on the Net
>
> Freedom House
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Igfmaglist [igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] on behalf of
> Patrick Ryan [patrickryan at google.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 19, 2013 8:07 AM
> *To:* Chris Disspain
> *Cc:* igfmag; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] IGF Reform Proposals
>
>   Chris,
>
>  Excellent questions----since there is no written scope for the MAG, the
> intent is to focus on structural changes for the IGF itself. In fact, I
> don't think that *any* of the suggested issues are in the mandate of the
> MAG at all (even though the "mandate" is unwritten), and certainly not in
> the MAG's control to change.
>
>  I'm intentionally avoiding the discussion of "program committee" issues
> (which is the MAG's main historical function). These reforms are important
> but are already part of a healthy debate and being driven by other
> proposals (such as Fiona's from a few weeks ago).
>
>  So yes, the UN writ large is the organization that would need to
> implement and effectuate the reform proposals here, as heavy as a lift as
> that may seem.  In terms of other areas of agreement with how I interpret
> your comments:
>
>    - I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should not use our role in
>    the MAG to force any discussion here, and especially not to limit the
>    discussion to MAG members---starting it with the MAG is fine so long as
>    it's not exclusively there, and expressly inclusive of other stakeholders.
>    - I also agree that the discussion needs to happen in the right arena
>    (not sure what that is, but my instinct tells me clearly that assuming a
>    later meeting or opportunity will arise is not going to work).
>    - I love your suggestion of organizing a last-minute session here in
>    Bali to discuss this---one that's inclusive of the broader community, which
>    I think is also a version of Angelic's suggestion earlier.
>
> I think a core question is: can we organize such a meeting while we're
> here in Bali with the community while we're here (using remote
> participation to include others)?  Maybe this is where the MAG can act,
> i.e., by exercising a strong voice in the MAG's role as a program committee
> to get space, time, and agenda to host the discussion this week.
>
>  Patrick
>
>  P.S. all of the foundational documents that were available on .pdfs on
> the IGF's page are redirecting somewhere else, like the IGF Project
> Document and other pdfs that were available here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=51&Itemid=68>.
>  Hopefully this can get fixed?
>
>  ------
> *patrick ryan *
> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l
> relations
> patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Patrick, All,
>>
>>  So, here's my take on all of this:
>>
>>  I guess you wrote this document - what is your goal for it? Are you a)
>> aiming to get input from all interested parties and then do something with
>> it or b) are you intending that it be developed into a MAG position or c)
>> something else.
>>
>>  I woud have no problem giving you input providing that I know where
>> this is intended to head.
>>
>>  If the goal is to get to a MAG position then I have some real concerns.
>> I think most of the points you have raised are outside the scope of the MAG
>> and so I'm uncomfortable with the MAG *as a group* coming to some
>> consensus position on these points and then lobbying to make it so. And,
>> irrespective of my discomfort, I doubt such an approach would be effective.
>> The MAG's time would be better spent concentrating on its mandate and doing
>> its job.
>>
>>  If the goal is to get IGF interested folks from all areas to coalesce
>> around ways to improve the IGF then that's fine but I would counsel against
>> using your position as a MAG member for that purpose. And I would advise
>> against the MAG formally meeting to discuss this paper.
>>
>>  I'm not seeking to close down a debate that I think is critical but
>> rather to ensure it takes place in the right arena. I wonder whether
>> there's any possibility of organising a last minute session open to all to
>> discuss IGF improvements? Or maybe there is already a session that can be
>> used for that?
>>
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>
>>  Chris
>>
>>  On 19/10/2013, at 19:02 , Patrick Ryan wrote:
>>
>>  Markus,
>>
>>  That's a fair point of clarification, and I don't think that discussion
>> needs to be in a MAG meeting, although it could be, although your concerns
>> about timing are noted. Truth is, there seems to never be the right time to
>> discuss these reform issues (they're difficult and all a really heavy
>> lift), so I think we need to seize the moment (and multiple moments, for
>> that matter).  From my perspective, the discussions must start in earnest
>> now, and while it would be ideal to do it in a setting with all of us
>> together, it's also possible to do it by email and in the doc---although
>> somewhat inefficient, that also enables the participants who were unable to
>> make it here this year, and for non MAG members.  Thank you for your
>> comments here by email as it already helps to advance the discussion and to
>> hear your perspective on a couple of the points.
>>
>>  To your question about format, the proposal is in Google Docs not
>> because it's a proprietary format. It should work on any browser through
>> HTML 5, which is open sourced, and using the link eliminates the need for
>> version control.  If anybody would like to download and store a version of
>> the document in the version at any point in time, it can be done by opening
>> the doc (available here<https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1IpseDEXj9F25-RQkJWX6ERYl6_K3-jlC0HpTYuqFDCY/edit>),
>> then File > Download As > then selecting whichever local format you prefer
>> (Word, RTF, ODT, TXT or HTML).
>>
>>  Sincerely,
>>
>>  Patrick
>>
>>  P.S. I just finished this email as you walked by to say hello in the
>> hotel lobby!  Would love to discuss live if you have a minute now.
>>
>>  ------
>> *patrick ryan *
>> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l
>> relations
>> patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> It will not be possible to hold a MAG meeting on Sunday morning, as the
>>> rooms will not be available and, also, the Secretariat fully engaged with
>>> last minute preparations.
>>>
>>> Also, I don't think that we will be able to discuss Patrick's reform
>>> proposals at our meetings in Bali - the MAG meetings will be very short and
>>> we will have to make best possible use of them to run the meeting.
>>>
>>> However, I am happy to organise a call to discuss the paper once the
>>> meeting is over. Only two preliminary comments:
>>>
>>> I am sure that we would all support an unlimited mandate for the IGF.
>>> However, this is out of scope for the MAG and, if anything, would be
>>> counterproductive.
>>>
>>> I would also like to recall that the IGF Secretariat repeatedly urged
>>> the MAG to come up with a formula for selecting its members and time and
>>> again the MAG preferred to sticking to the current practice, leaving it
>>> what MAG Members used to term "the black box". I for one would strongly
>>> support any effort to develop a more transparent formula. This is clearly
>>> within the scope of the MAG.
>>>
>>> Lastly, may I ask Patrick to send us the document he circulated as an
>>> attachment rather than using proprietary web services.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:18 PM, angelic40 at gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear Patrick,
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I am all for a discussion whether it is during one of the MAG get
>>> tot hers or just an evening over dinner or so. I will not arrive in time
>>> for a weekend session, but if I make it to Bali, I will be available
>>> starting Thursday morning.
>>> > I agree that an online discussion/ participation should be part of it.
>>> >
>>> > Looking forward to participating in this discussion
>>> > Angelic
>>> >
>>> > Sent from my iPad
>>> >
>>> > On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Angelic,
>>> >>
>>> >> That's a really good question---we don't actually have anything set
>>> up to discuss this, although I'm hopeful that we can address it at one of
>>> the MAG meetings that has been set.  Alternatively, for those that are
>>> arriving this weekend, I would love to get together----say, on Sunday
>>> morning----to host a discussion.  I also think that it will be important to
>>> see if we can collect some of the views of colleagues that have not been
>>> able to make it to Bali for various reasons (such as the visa situation),
>>> and so I suspect that the discussion should also include some online
>>> elements (email, maybe we create another Doc that people can collaborate
>>> on) so that we can hear their views.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you or anybody has any thoughts on that, I would love to hear them.
>>> >>
>>> >> Patrick
>>> >>
>>> >> ------
>>> >> patrick ryan
>>> >> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and
>>> int'l relations
>>> >> patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Angelic del Castilho <
>>> angelic40 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Dear Patrick,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you for this information. Is there a specific date set during
>>> the IGF in Bali for discussing this document or is the discussion only
>>> through comments online for now?
>>> >>
>>> >> Have a great day!
>>> >> Angelic
>>> >>
>>> >> Angelic Caroline Alihusain-del Castilho
>>> >> POB 3036
>>> >> Wanica
>>> >> Suriname
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Dear MAG Colleagues,
>>> >>
>>> >> As we head into the IGF this year, I wanted to share some thoughts on
>>> the "top five" issues for IGF reform.  The document is in a draft form and
>>> could benefit form the thoughts and input from all of us.  It's not a
>>> private document, so feel free to share.  It's not a Google position
>>> although as I've mentioned to many, many of my colleagues at Google are
>>> very keen to make sure that we engage in serious reform
>>> discussions----starting next week.
>>> >>
>>> >> It's never easy to propose reform discussions of this kind (it's hard
>>> in any organization) and I genuinely hope that the suggestions here will be
>>> received by the UN and IGF colleagues in the positive spirit that they are
>>> intended.  We all believe strongly in the IGF and it's because of our
>>> belief in it that we should be talking about how to make it stronger.
>>> >>
>>> >> The document is available here.  Comments are really welcome and
>>> encouraged, either by email or by using the comment function of Google Docs.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sincerely,
>>> >>
>>> >> Patrick
>>> >>
>>> >> ------
>>> >> patrick ryan
>>> >> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and
>>> int'l relations
>>> >> patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Igfmaglist mailing list
>>> >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>> >>
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Igfmaglist mailing list
>>> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>>> >
>>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>>
>>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> igf_members mailing list
> igf_members at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20131019/1bbc72df/attachment.htm>