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

Sun Dec 14 15:21:37 EST 2014

Greetings all, Lea,

Lea, I very much appreciate your thinking around the WG ToRs.

Just FYI, re the Workshop WG, a draft ToR has been circulated to the
dedicated list for feedback this week.

The subject of this particular WG requires moving quickly because it
informs the call for workshop proposals. Different WGs will have different
timing constraints.

Sincerely,
Susan

Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

*CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>  Support to the 2 step process.
>
> I think that is as excellent suggestion, and thank Lea.
>
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 02:58:11 +0800
> > From: jac at apcwomen.org
> > To: lea at gp-digital.org; baher.esmat at icann.org
> > CC: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] SHOULD ALL WORKING GROUPS BE OPEN TO THE
> ENTIRE IG COMMUNITY IMMEDIATELY?
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > +1 on 2 step process.
> >
> > Best,
> > jac
> >
> > On 11/12/2014 20:40, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> > > 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 <http://gp-digital.org/>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Baher Esmat
> > > <baher.esmat at icann.org <mailto: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
> > > <mailto: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] *Sent:*
> > > Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:24 PM *To:* Bhatia, Virat;
> > > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto: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
> > > <mailto: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
> > > <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> > > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing
> > > list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> > >
> >
> > - --
> >
> > - ---------------------------------
> > Jac sm Kee
> > Manager, Women's Rights Programme
> > Association for Progressive Communications
> > www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
> > Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> >
> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUjIxDAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmK3MH/2yoOowtHTCsZesfqw9mQB7I
> > /A0lwb5exFM0RqmS9gaLh27dswIWoszkuYb3FQ0yii9etULYIIjkReAfWvTFW5UC
> > unusQE2ZVN9rAQxOYrMYKdAjwQTipmIVBhY751lXy/Idvq35mHPORAKi8KGshKWJ
> > v1waUqnYMoB6yrq2m5omTXRc3iJR2sqerZA0y5vtR/8QT5z+yKVtWzdxiNNHf8bk
> > 9GF9JQR9J4N/vYfuNqm7ulf9h9x7Xi5PjDdGg+pIZ5R1/zQmAGt9ZLZs+KyhBeJe
> > DKPSzUngk5IAi9AGqaaO3HuV8jDgcv6zpic1soKHB0ULK05KGvvG7gyLd2AoNfE=
> > =HbjG
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Igfmaglist mailing list
> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141215/5fd5efb7/attachment.htm>