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

[Ana Neves]

Dear Subi and dear all,

I concur with all the remarks made (since mine).

On addressing developments in each others' organizations - that would not be really the purpose as if I think the defensive mode will not help us in the discussion, the offensive mode would be much worse. Not the purpose, at all.

My intention is to make those persons that are working hardly in the Internet ecosystem to try to broaden their views and not to talk about others’ organizations but to bear in mind that when they talk in an IGF, it would be good to have new perspectives from these persons regarding the evolution of the Internet ecosystem and to think about other organizations and not "others' organizations" as Bill correctly mentioned. I don't think it will very interesting to hear again that the organization X or Z is the best one and it's making the best of the MS model, while I find very interesting if they are somehow invited to speak in a positive mode on how they face such evolution having in mind the interests and the roles of "others' organizations" and processes. That I hope could trigger a very interesting debate from the audience.

By no means I want to propose anything that would be potential uncomfortable, but on the other hand, people have to start to talk about the evolution and the future in an inclusive manner. That would be extremely helpful to bridge the gap between governments of different countries as for the time being they are too attached to certain organizations which spoils the whole dialogue or doesn't allow any, and if one sees that organizations talk among themselves,  that would be extremely useful to the world as Internet is a global resource and therefore touches everyone. And that dialogue is extremely useful if we want to advance e.g. at UN resolutions that are lagging behind any evolution of the system, and this is crucial still for this year discussions at different settings.

Best,

Ana



Sent from my iPad

On 11/07/2014, at 09:32, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Subi

Thanks for this.

On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com<mailto:subichaturvedi at gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

I suspect many folks would agree that Town Hall with initial remarks is a good format.  The questions to be sorted are:

1.  Number of initial remarkers:  4 minutes x your initial suggested list of a dozen or more would make for quite a long period of the audience being talked to before they get to participate.  One also wonders whether Secretary Generals etc. will be happy to speak for just 3-4 minutes, and how comfortable the moderator will be pushing them to wrap it up if they go over.

2.  Composition of the group: I take your point that hearing some 'established leaders’ might not seem like ‘old news’ to many attendees even if veterans find it a bit familiar.  It’s just a question of balance, 7 being a lot.  Stakeholder voices are equally important, and the group there needs to be inclusive of varying viewpoints and demographics.

3.  Focus of ‘leader’ comments: I share Ana’s concern that asking leaders to speak about what their organizations are doing could lead to standard talking point explanations and defenses of their activities.  We have seen this many many times in IGF main sessions over the past decade, and with all due respect to the participants it has been known to occasion impromptu coffee breaks and Facebook checking.  Asking them to speak to larger developments, e.g. the state of play and future prospects for the ‘ecosystem,’ would seem more interesting.  I don’t know though about asking them to address developments in each others’ organizations, that seems a bit diplomatically unusual and potentially uncomfortable.

4.  The distribution of topical foci and interventions over the three hours:  Again, if we are going to have a discussion that moves from external events and the implications for the IGF’s role to how the IGF can respond in terms of strengthening its processes and filling gaps, then the speakers/time slots need to be allocated across this narrative.

5.  Moderator(s): With this design and composition we’ll really need experienced people who are clued into the issues and now how to keep a discussion on track.  My suggestion would be one moderator for the ecosystem developments piece and one for the IGF response piece, which would be less exhausting for whomever and increase diversity.

So that we can get started in sorting this out, may I once again ask that you circulate the list of speakers you have reached out to and who has accepted.  There are now 27 people subscribed to this list, which is a good indicator of keen interest in the community.  We cannot collaboratively program a main session with only one or two people knowing who’s been invited or has accepted, and there are reasons this has never been done before.

Thank you,

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