[IGFmaglist] [DC] Coordination of intersessional activities

Sat Jun 16 02:45:05 EDT 2018

Dear Luca,

You are right of course and I should have been more diligent in my wording. We all agree that there is a difference between the intersessional activities that benefit from Secretariat support and operate under the guidance of the MAG and the DCs which are autonomous and self-organised. We discussed this more than once on our DC coordination calls and my email is not meant to be read as a a suggestion to impose new constraints or aim to achieve a complete alignment between DCs and BPFs/CENB. 

Having said that, there is merit if the DCs align themselves to the extent possible with (some of) the deadlines of the other activities. We have already done that with the deadline for requesting DC slots. With common deadlines for submitting comments, for instance, we make it easier for the broader community to take part in the process. In any case, the basic idea is not to impose anything, but to let the constituent parts of the IGF come together in a bottom-up effort to streamline their activities.

Once again, my apologies for creating some confusion. I hope this email clarifies the matter and we have of course the opportunity to discuss this further on our next DC call.

Best regards
Markus

> On 15 Jun 2018, at 19:21, LB at lucabelli.net wrote:
> 
> Dear Markus,
> 
> Thank you for this message.
> 
> Unfortunately this proposal does not seem to consider the reality of elaborating DC outcomes. 
>  
> First, it assumes that all DCs elaborate the same kind of outcomes as BFFs. This is obviously not the case. DCs have been producing many outcomes which are very different from the Best Practice papers e.g. collective peer-reviewed books, online maps, etc, and it would be quite unfeasible to ask to have the first version of a 250-page book or website at the same time as a first draft of a draft paper and to comment on the same platform (which BTW would not be even conceivable with regard to e.g. a website).
>  
> The richness of DC outcomes is precisely the fact that they are very diverse and do not follow the same format. 
>  
> I am not sure that the establishment of the new procedural requirements you mention would facilitate the elaboration and diversification of outputs. IMHO, flexibility in output organisation IS what has allowed us to produce outputs and innovate in terms of what outcomes can be elaborated, demonstrating that IGF can have not only concrete but also creative results, rather than being a mere talking shop.
>  
> Second, the BFFs are able to respect homogeneous deadlines mainly because they enjoy consultants paid by the Secretariat helping them developing their papers. Is the Secretariat going to provide a consultant per DC to help organising the work? If so - and I am really not sure this is the case - how this assistance would be organised?
>  
> Sceptical people may think that this new procedural requirements are not really in the interest of greater IGF-community participation in DC outcomes as much as they are in the interest of greater MAG control on the DC outcomes.This would not only be unfortunate but also would be not foreseen by any of the attributions of the MAG, which is a programme committee and, as you Markus rightly point out, has no say on the substance of what DC produce as outcomes.
> 
> I am sorry if I am being too frank, but after last year - completely unmotivated - decision to reduce our time-slots (decision that, luckily, was reversed thanks to all those who commented on the absurdity of the decision, during the stocktaking consultation), there is the general feeling that MAG is not doing its best effort to facilitate our work.
>  
> Not to mention that, after having allowed us to include the IGF logo on our outcomes in 2016, the Secretariat has changed its policy - with no motivation  - in 2017.   So, if I understand correctly (and, please, correct me if I am wrong), what is currently proposed is that we respect the same procedural requirements as BFFs, without being helped  by consultants and without being able to include the IGF logo on our outcomes.
> 
> If my summary is correct, it may seem that we would have to undertake all the same obligations of BFFs, while enjoying none of the BFFs "privileges".
>  
> If my representation is correct, I would argue we would be slightly unwise to even consider the proposal.
>  
> With my best regards
> Luca
>  
>  
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Luca Belli, PhD
> Senior Researcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro
> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
> Head of Internet Governance at FGV
> internet-governance.fgv.br
> @1lucabelli 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.
> 
>  
>  
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [DC] Coordination of intersessional activities
> From: "Markus Kummer" <kummer.markus at gmail.com>
> Date: 6/13/18 10:19 am
> To: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> Cc: dc at intgovforum.org, intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> There was a common conclusion emerging from the BPFs and DCs, namely that it would be beneficial for the broader IGF community if all intersessional activities had some form a light coordination among themselves. Obviously, there would not be a coordination in terms of substance, this would be more an alignment of procedures and deadlines, such as by when a first draft should be posted and opened for comments, by when a second draft should be posted, when should the document that is submitted to the IGF be frozen and similar procedural issues.
> 
> A streamlined approach with common deadlines would make it easier for the broader IGF community to participate actively in the various activities and provide comments. As all these activities are getting started now, it would be useful for them to have a joint call to discuss these issues. This could be done as soon as the consultants who will support the BPFs and CENB have been recruited.
> 
> The MAG may wish to discuss this at today’s or at the next call and provide guidance, time permitting.
> 
> Best regards
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DC mailing list
> DC at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org