[IGFmaglist] [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF (Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)

Fri Jul 11 03:55:32 EDT 2014

Dear Subi, dear colleagues,

Bearing in mind everything that has been written and explained by Subi, and supporting Bill's concerns, I think this interaction obliged me to have a new look into the session and to try to understand what would be innovative in a session like this one.

Am I understanding correctly that all these persons

IGF- Janis Karklins
ITU- Hamadoun
ICANN- Fadi Chehade’
ISOC - Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
IETF-Jari Arkko
W3C- Tim Berners Lee
Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)

were invited to speak? Because we now have A. Strands and B. Stakeholder speakers, so I understand that persons highlighted on A would be invited to talk about "their" organizations, as representatives of each strand.

If that is so, I dare to say (as this is a space to open dialogue) that for A. what would be really innovative would be to have Touré speaking about IGF and NETmundial, Fadi about ITU, Tim Berners Lee on IGF, Janis on ISOC (and IETF), Jari on ITU and Amb. Fonseca/Prof Virgilio on ICANN and ITU. Or everyone in a different order, but the point here would be to make all these "CEOs" to truly talk about the evolution of the Internet Governance System but not in a defending  mode of "their" organizations/movements but to have a say on how they see all the other organizations in an ecosystem that they are part of.

Is it too out of your minds? Well, in my humble opinion, that it is what would make this session really interesting. I talked about this potential model with different people with different backgrounds (the so called participants) and I only had very positive inputs.

Best,

Ana

Sent from my iPad

On 11/07/2014, at 07:35, "Subi Chaturvedi" <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks Mathew for your expression of interest in being a speaker for the session. Noted. You will indeed add value.

Bringing the new volunteers up to speed, the session had originally been envisaged by way of suggestion, to be a townhall format organised around a deep well, since the hosts and the secretariat have been kind enough to support the innovation in format. Where there only be resource persons, facilitators, who may make initial remarks for about 3-4 minutes each. Drawn from a multitude of organisations, regions, representing stakeholder and gender balance and diversity in approach and opinion.

Hoping for an ideal win-win, where the session remains interactive and we keep maximum time for interventions from the participants. It is an experiment to 'unpanel', the panel. Where there are no panelists speaking from a distance, to do away with the pedestal and with it, the top down distant approach of a main-main, literally and figuratively.

Contributions in shaping the session and suggestions for facilitators(erstwhile speakers), who will lay out key issues and organisational contributions are indeed welcome.

Also while I agree that some of us might have heard the established leaders speak to key issues before and interventions might sound familiar, there are many who are first time participants at the IGF or are relatively new or new-old. There is value in also upholding quality interventions from these leaders, who I believe still have a lot to contribute in building the knowledge agenda, educating and increasing awareness amongst new stakeholders who are at various levels in the IG ecosystem and are not privy to the same insights that these leaders are or some of us might be. Moreover the IG ecosystem over the past two years alone is rapidly undergoing a transformation, new processes, initiatives, commissions and new challenges abound. Keeping pace can be well daunting and downright impossible for many especially where there is a gap that exists between information generators, keepers and consumers. Capacity building and contributing to the knowledge agenda is also a key objective here.

We recognise the need to constantly endeavour, to have a conversation where the community listens to each other and all efforts are made to encourage speakers/facilitors who are new from developing countries, represent small island nations, help improve stakeholder balance by voicing concerns of underrepresented stakeholder groups with gender balance and regional diversity. There is no one size fits all. And we hope with such resourceful contributors this panel will be anything but. I hope we can revisit the our individual knowledge bases and continue to work towards this.

I also hope we can jointly work together to make this main constructive by thinking outside the box, proactively.

The two co-leads will be co-ordinating inputs over the weekend. All the volunteers are therefore requested to please provide their inputs, suggestions, ideas and recommendations on content, format, speakers, policy questions in the next couple of days.

So that we may move forward.

It is imperative that we take an approach which is result driven especially, if we're looking at new facilitators who will speak from respective stakeholder groups. We are required to give them sufficient notice to enable their participation, to have the best strategic fit for this session. The contributions received already from MAG members have been of immense value. I thank them all and hope that they will continue to engage.

The draft will then be circulated early next week to enable a meaningful and substantive discussion on the next call.

regards

Subi

On 11 July 2014 06:06, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
Agree with Jeanette:  "Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected."  The session would be better served by a greater diversity of views and representation.   Why not just ask each of the persons listed below to speak for 1 minute from the audience - perhaps grouped by issue/challenge or "what are the next steps"? That way there is plenty of time for other voices to speak.

On 7/10/2014 10:24 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
Hi all,

I would like to support Bill's concern about the number of panelists. Personally, I wouldn't attend a main session with such an extensive number of speakers because it seems clear from the outset that they will use most of the speaking time. Most if not all of the suggested speakers are also know well enough and speak so often that not much new insights can be expected.

We had a few years with Nitin Desai as chair where main sessions were run without any panels and panelists. Instead, the audience did the talking. Some of these sessions were good, some of them less so. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to reintroduce this format.

Best, Jeanette

Am 10.07.2014 16:11, schrieb Matthew Shears:
While jumping in on this rather late - and recognizing the list of
potential speakers is long -  I would be happy to be a panelist.

Thanks.

Matthew

On 7/10/2014 10:06 AM, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
Thank you, Sorina.

There seems to be a few issues with the mailing lists. I have been
receiving requests from members of the BPF mailing lists to have them
checked.

With regards to the list of speakers below, I can confirm that Subi
has reached out to Kathy Brown (President and CEO of ISOC) who has
confirmed her participation in this main session.

All the best,
Constance

From: Sorina TELEANU <STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch> <mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch<mailto:STELEANU at unog.ch>>>
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:50 AM
To: "evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>"
<evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org> <mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>
Subject: [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of
Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF – (Reaction to NETmundial +
CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)

Dear all,

We are re-sending this email to the list, as it seems it didn't get
through before.

Best regards,

Sorina Teleanu
IGF Secretariat

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *William Drake <_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>>
*Subject: Re: [Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] Next Steps: Way Forward
Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF – (Reaction to
NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)*
*Date: *July 8, 2014 at 4:34:52 PM GMT+2
*To: *evolintgov2014 <_evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_
<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>>

Hi

So according to the archives, the last messages to this planning group
list were 16 April. Further to the conversations on the main MAG list,
it’d be good to follow the sort of procedures used in previous years
and have interactive dialogue and collective decision making.

We agreed on the previous MAG call to do this session in two steps,
the external environment impacting IGF and its role, and from which
IGF can learn (NM, CSTD, WSIS10, ITU, etc); and then turn to how the
IGF can strengthen its processes in order to step up and help fill the
gaps (inter alia so that dialogue doesn’t all redirect to less
inclusive organizations and alliances).

So some questions:

1. Title: "Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of the IGF
- Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD + WSIS, ITU, other fora”. Would it not
make sense to tweak this rather long title? The first half would seem
fine to me without the second if we just replaced "/" with “and the.”
Thoughts?

2. The session description that would appear in the program would need
to be recalibrated to reflect the evolution. I’m not clear which of
the bits of text I’ve seen constitute the current draft description,
so if that could be shared for consideration it’d be really helpful.

3. Speakers: the last message I saw, on the main MAG list, listed the
following:

>> On 7 May 2014 16:53, Subi Chaturvedi <_subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>_
<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>>> wrote:

>>> SUGGESTED- (Open to inputs/Suggestions)
>>>
>>> A. The strands/org identified are:
>>> 1. IGF- Janis Karklins
>>> 2. ITU- Hamadoun Toure’
>>> 3. ICANN- Fadi Chehade’
>>> 4. ISOC- Kathy Brown/ Markus Kummer
>>> 5. IETF-Jari Arkko
>>> 6. W3C- Tim Berners Lee
>>> 7. Netmundial- Amb. Fonseka/Prof. Virgilio (Chair)
>>>
>>> B. Stakeholder Speakers (Suggested)
>>> 1. Academia: Milton Mueller/ Stephanie Parrin/ Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>>> 2. Civil Society: Nnenna, Jovan (Diplo)/ Ron Dilbert (Citizen Lab)
>>> 3. Technical Community: Avri Doria, Byron Holland (CIRA)
>>> 4. Private Sector: Vint Cert, Zahid Jamil
>>> 5. Government: 2-3 (from developing country and another from the
developed C) Proposed names - Neelie Kroes VP-EU and Ed Vaizy (The
Swedish ministers have also been vocal and then there’s Marco Civil.
Requesting one from BRICS (Brazil, India, Russia China, South Africa
might work here.)

I have a couple concerns here. First, I hope we are not falling back
into the trap of building enormous panels, because it has been proven
time and again for a decade not to work well. If we do serial talking
head prepared comments we end up with a disaster, it’s boring and
there’s no time for audience interaction. If we do a more
moderator-driven talk show interactive format, it gets awkward keeping
everyone in the discussion and the discussion well focused. I’ve
co-moderated a few main session with big panels agreed by previous
MAG+ planning groups and while they were interesting enough, it was a
challenge to avoid having multiple conversational threads dangling
with a big group commenting in different directions.

Second, I’m not clear on how Suggested became Decided, but I know
several folks who have been invited already and assume there have been
others. In previous years this was handled in a different,
collectively agreed manner.

Could we please have an update on who has been invited already, and
who has accepted? And can we please hold off on going further down
that road until there’s been dialogue and everyone’s on board? There
are 18 people subscribed to this list and I’m guessing I am not the
only one here who doesn’t quite understand where we are or how we got
here. Either way, it would be good for us to proceed from here together.

Thanks,

Bill

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
ICANN, _www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>_ <http://www.ncuc.org/>_
__william.drake at uzh.ch<http://uzh.ch>_ <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> (direct),
_wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>_ <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> (lists),_
__www.williamdrake.org_ <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
***********************************************

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list_
__Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org_ <mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>>_
__http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org_

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
+ 44 771 247 2987

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
+ 44 771 247 2987

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

_______________________________________________
Evolintgov2014 mailing list
Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org<mailto:Evolintgov2014 at intgovforum.org>
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org

[IGFmaglist] [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF ­ (Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)

[IGFmaglist] [Evolintgov2014] Next Steps: Way Forward Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem/Role of IGF (Reaction to NETmundial + CSTD, WSIS, ITU, other fora.)