[IGFmaglist] SHOULD ALL WORKING GROUPS BE OPEN TO THE ENTIRE IG COMMUNITY IMMEDIATELY?

[Lea Kaspar]

Dear all,

The understanding I got from our conversations at the MAG meeting last week
was that all groups (not just the one on themes) would be open to the
community. I believe this will be reflected in the transcripts, but would
need to double-check.

My default position is openness/ inclusiveness, but I do recognise the
potential difficulty for the coordinators of managing a process where
decisions need to be made and they have to accommodate opinions of several
dozens of people. Looking at the various working groups, it may well be the
case that the appropriate mechanism for engagement will not be the same for
all the groups.

With this in mind, perhaps the option of a sequenced approach could work
best. As the first step, the coordinators and interested MAG members
develop the appropriate terms of reference (TOR) for each group by
mid-January. Second step - open the groups with relevant TOR to the
community for a defined period of time (e.g. by end of January).
Coordinators may then also decide to have a short window to further refine
the TOR with the new members, as appropriate.

This approach has the benefit of ensuring that people know what they are
committing to once they join these groups. It also allows coordinators to
get better organised - after all, they are taking on a substantial
work-load and responsibility.

In any case, I agree with Baher that the community should be made aware of
the process through the IGF website as soon as the MAG comes to a decision.

My 2 cents.

Warm wishes,

*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org> wrote:

> So, the meeting summary shared by Chengetai states: "groups will be open
> to any interested stakeholder”*.  *But when I saw the public call was
> only for the themes group I was a little confused.
>
> I’m totally for opening the groups to any non-MAG members. If however,
> some groups would prefer to do some planning work (processes and timelines
> as per Virat’s note) before opening up the group to the public, I don’t
> object that either. We should only be cognizant of time so that not to
> invite community late in the process.
>
> Best
> Baher
>
>
> On 12/11/14, 1:23 PM, "Bhatia, Virat" <virat.bhatia at intl.att.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Members of the MAG,
>
> Baher has raised an important question on whether the working groups are
> open to volunteers beyond the MAG membership at this stage.
>
> Baher, Thanks for raising the question.  Here is my understanding.
>
> During the MAG meeting I had recommended that the working group (MAG
> members) who volunteer, would come together and formulate processes and
> timelines for intersessional work which would include the procedure for
> engaging the larger community.  Following this, the working of the working
> group would be opened to the larger community for wider participation.
> However, there were requests about making the entire process bottom-up,
> based on open consultation. Further, I saw there was an open call for
> themes which went beyond the MAG membership.  I assume the same is true for
> all working groups.
>
> Since you raise the question, I think we should decide whether the working
> groups (except on themes) must be opened to the entire IG  community at
> this stage? Or later, when the norms and processes have been finalized for
> the larger community’s participation (beyond MAG). Since there is no
> precedent – especially with regards to intersessional work, we will need to
> make that decision now.
>
> Request my co-coordinators and others to weigh in on whether working
> groups should be open to all, ( beyond the MAG list) right away, or should
> it be done after initial discussion on procedures, timelines and basic
> structure / plan  have been concluded, and then open the working groups to
> a wider participation in  January  / early February?
>
> Please share your thoughts since all coordinators of working groups will
> need similar guidance.
>
> Regards
>
> Virat Bhatia
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Baher Esmat [mailto:baher.esmat at icann.org <baher.esmat at icann.org>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:24 PM
> *To:* Bhatia, Virat; Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IGFmaglist] INVITATION TO SIGN ON TO THE DEDICATED LIST
> FOR THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERSESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
>
>
>
> Hi Virat,
>
>
>
> On 12/10/14, 4:53 PM, "Bhatia, Virat" <virat.bhatia at intl.att.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> *Please invite others*
>
> Further, those who have already joined the list, or are interested in
> doing so, are requested to kindly publicize this widely and invite
> colleagues from your network(s) to join the list, if they wish to
> participate and contribute to the discussions on intersessional work.
>
> Is this list open for non-MAG members? I only saw the public call for
> participation in the theme / sub-themes list.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Baher
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20141211/6dc89fb8/attachment.htm>