[IGFmaglist] IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) Procedures and Modalities Document - for review

Thu Apr 6 20:16:29 EDT 2017

Dear Juan, all,

Many thanks for your positive feed-back.

Juan raises what I consider a central point: I deliberately left out the procedural elements such as deadlines for submitting proposals, as this would go beyond describing the status quo. 

The MAG may well decide to go down that road, but in my view this would need a thorough discussion first. The point I was trying to make was that the MAG may be better served with a flexible procedure. In the past, BPF themes were selected in a collective brainstorming, and that worked rather well. There is the old saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”—  should we not apply this to the selection of BPF themes?  

Of course, any input into the brainstorming is welcome, whether this is oral, an email, a video, a link to existing literature or a more elaborate proposal. My feeling however is that we would be better off with leaving it up to each MAG member how best to push their ideas. The paper rightly points out that there is no one size fits all for each BPF and that they should be given flexibility in developing their own format. The same principle could also apply to the initial selection phase.

Best regards
Markus

On 06 Apr 2017, at 19:12, Juan Fernandez <juan.fdz.glz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Markus and MAG Colleagues:
> 
> I agree with Markus, specially when he says: "... the paper misses the big picture and fails to explain  the strategic role of the MAG in the selection of the BPFs."
> 
> Therefore, I think that the reviewed version of the paper that he annexes is an improvement.
> 
> The only thing that I miss is that there is no mention of a time frame for the submission of written BPF proposals, in order for the MAG members to be able to review them before the face-to-face meeting where they will be discussed.
> 
> Maybe this can be added to this last version of the paper.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Juan.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Markus Kummer <kummer.markus at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Lynn, all,
> 
> Let me start by thanking Juan for his effort at codifying our BPF
> procedures — it is a good first effort and as such very much
> appreciated. On last week’s call I made some preliminary comments. My
> first reaction was that the paper made matters more complicated than
> necessary. Reading it again, I find that the paper is not just describing
> how things have worked until now, but is prescriptive and imposes new procedures
> and reporting requirements. I thought the main objective of the paper was to write
> down how it works, for the benefit of future MAG generations. We have never
> discussed whether new procedures are necessary. On the whole, existing
> procedures seem to have worked well and I consider the BPFs an IGF success
> story.
> 
> The paper seems to change the modalities of the selection process.
> Until now the selection was part of an open discussion among MAG
> members on the pros and cons of any given issue. The current version
> reads more like a workshop selection process, based on written
> proposals. It leaves out what happened in the past (and what happened
> to some extent during our last call) and what was more like a MAG
> brainstorming on what would be an appropriate issue for a BPF at a
> given moment (i.e. is an issue mature enough to be taken up, is it
> topical, does the Secretariat have the expertise to support it?). Once
> the MAG agreed on a theme, then some MAG member(s) -- usually those
> who proposed it -- were asked to get the BPF started. The paper seems
> to reverse the process and gives the impression that a call for
> written proposals is at the beginning of the MAG's selection process.
> 
> I also feel that the paper misses the big picture and fails to explain
> the strategic role of the MAG in the selection of the BPFs. The
> discussion we had on the call was good and reflected what I would
> consider the specific role of the MAG, that is having a more strategic
> discussion how the BPFs fit into the broader "IGF system", to use
> Juan’s terminology. In my view it is essential to retain the
> collective role of the MAG as the IGF programme committee to set the
> strategic priorities. This can best be done in a more informal
> brainstorming setting, rather than though a collective evaluation of
> written proposals. Experience shows that people dig in if they have
> invested some time in writing down a proposal. They are more flexible
> and ready to compromise when they are brainstorming.
> 
> I tried to rewrite the paper with a focus on two things:
> 
> 1/ a chapeau par explaining the strategic role of the MAG in selecting
> an issue for a BPF;
> 2/ a simplified operational part with rules and procedures (e.g. I
> don't see a need for an additional reporting requirement, as in any
> case,each BPF is required to produce a report as an outcome of the
> exercise).
> 
> Please find attached my version for your consideration. In order to
> avoid confusion I used the first version as a basis and for ease of
> reading avoided track changes.
> 
> Best regards
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Mar 2017, at 22:59, Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > Chengetai is traveling and so I am forwarding this on behalf of Juan Fernandez in order to ensure the MAG gets a chance to review ahead of our next meeting.  Juan had agreed at the MAG meeting in Geneva to review and update the procedures and modalities document for IGF Best Practice Forums (BPFs).
> >
> > Please review and send any comments to the MAG list.
> >
> > I understand that thanks go to Brian Gutterman and Eleonora Mazzucchi in the IGF Secretariat for all their support of this effort.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lynn
> >
> > <IGF BPFs - About BPFs, Formation and Working Modalities27March.docx>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20170407/1179fc61/attachment.htm>