[WG-Strategy] Thoughts on IGF outcomes for 2020

[Flávio Rech Wagner]

Dear all

I fully support Anriette's proposal below. Producing a richer report, 
with relevant feedback from the community, will also help create better 
links between the IGF and entities which make decisions about internet 
governance issues (Chapter 5 of the Draft Options Paper).

In the DESA Retreat (2016), where improvements to the IGF have been 
discussed, it has been proposed that "/other actors and institutions 
that are not directly related to IG could also provide inputs or benefit 
from outputs of IGF, and therefore there is a need for the relevance of 
the IGF to be communicated to those that are both internal within and 
external to the current IGF community/". It has been also suggested that 
"/the IGF could engage more effectively with those organizations, 
including non-governmental ones, that have roles in the implementation 
of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development/". These recommendations 
can be covered by Step 6 of Anriette's proposal.

Additionally, it has been suggested that, "/in order to improve the 
IGF’s outputs, it should be determined first what the purpose or 
purposes and “target audiences” of these documents are and what types of 
documents would be most useful to the different user groups and their 
specific needs/". This idea could be considered as a basic requirement 
for the whole process of producing reports from the IGF and, in 
particular, as an essential requirement for Step 6. Specific reports (or 
messages), produced for specific target audiences, especially for 
entities outside the traditional IGF community, could be generated from 
a "master report".

It is important that Step 6 is concluded every year well ahead of the 
calls for workshops and other sessions for the next IGF, as the content 
of the report will be a very important input to shape the programme of 
the forthcoming IGF, including the definition of BPFs for the next IGF 
cycle by the MAG.

As another suggestion regarding Step 6, which is also closely related to 
Chapter 2 of the Draft Options Paper (on Inclusivity), I bring this 
additional recommendation from the DESA Retreat: "/Translation, perhaps 
into French and other UN languages, should be considered for at least 
some selected important documents. Partnerships could be sought e.g. 
with UN specialized agencies that have translation and outreach 
resources and/or with private sector actors that may offer software 
tools e.g. for automated translation or other supporting services. 
Crowd-sourcing could be used for translation of IGF documents, perhaps 
even engaging the NRIs and the Friends of IGF collaborators/".

As I see from the IGF website, it seems that only the Chair's Summary of 
the IGF 2019 has been translated into other languages. I think the 
complete "master report" from the IGF, coming out from Step 6, should be 
translated into various languages.

As a practical observation, I notice that we do not have plenty of time 
available before IGF 2020 to implement Steps 1 and 2 in the most 
adequate way, as Step 2 requires an appropriate time period to collect 
feedback from IGF stakeholders and other IG entities and to prepare a 
new version of the document produced in Step 1. Maybe we need to think 
of an "expedited" process for 2020. For the coming years, the procedure 
outlined by Anriette can be more effectively implemented with more 
extended time periods.

I agree with Jeremy's comments (on another email) regarding Step 4. It 
must be avoided that reporting from the various sessions is biased by 
the respective organizers' perspectives. So I support Jeremy's proposal 
of "/an additional step of public notice and feedback, in which the 
rapporteurs would be required to share the draft report with those who 
attended the session, and, if any responses were received, those would 
also be made available to the Secretariat/consultant/".

Best regards

Flávio



> Dear all
>
> The MAG will be discussing how to approach 'outcomes' at this year's 
> IGF. I looked at the options paper which goes much further in 
> proposing a way towards concrete outcomes. While I don't disagree with 
> those proposals, I know we have not yet reached consensus on them so 
> my suggestions only reflect them in quite a small way.
>
> Mostly I have tried to build on current and previous practices, with 
> some incremental changes that will bring us closer to a more 
> outcome-oriented IGF without compromising the IGF's value as a 
> platform for open discussion.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Anriette
>
> *Suggestions for strengthening IGF outcomes in 2020*
>
> Step 1
>
> More focused and actionable outcomes are linked to a more focused 
> agenda and the MAG has already taken steps to achieve this. What about 
> building on the 4 themes by identifying key issues and questions based 
> on session proposals? Much of this work has already been done by the 
> MAG. We can either consolidate this work ourselves, or use the 
> assistance of a consultant to produce a document with key 
> issues/policy questions/priorities for each theme.
>
> If there is sufficient resources available the author of this document 
> can also provide an overview of the key entities/processes that are 
> developing policy responses for the various thematic track issues. 
> This can serve to highlight which institutions should participate in 
> relevant thematic sessions, as well as to begin to identify who should 
> be communicated to when outcomes (suggestions, messages, 
> recommendations) are shared and discussed further.
>
> Step 2
>
> The outcome of step one is shared publicly with IGF stakeholder and 
> other IG institutions for their feedback which is then integrated into 
> an IGF 2020 thematic framing document.  This will allow people to add 
> new issues/ideas  that have emerged since the workshop proposals and 
> response to call for issue validation earlier this year.
>
> Step 3
>
> MAG members use this framing document as a basis for a) the 
> introductory sessions for each theme and b) the first draft of an 
> outline version of IGF 2020 outcomes. It can be adapted based on the 
> outcomes discussions during the introductory sessions. This framing 
> document can also draw on the final outcome reports of the 2019 BPFs 
> where relevant.
>
> Step 4
>
> The MAG asks session organisers/rapporteurs to capture 
> messages/recommendations etc. in response to these issues/questions in 
> the framing document. They are also asked to suggest where and by whom 
> they think further discussion or action on these issues are needed. We 
> can also ask them to do what the MAG did in the past, which was to 
> reflect a) points of consensus b) areas of divergence, and c) issues 
> that need further exploration by, for example BPFs.
>
> This need not create an additional burden for session organisers as we 
> can merge this 'template' with existing reporting templates.
>
> Step 5
>
> The Secretariat (ideally with the help of an independent consultant) 
> then synthesises the resulting outcomes  into an overall outcome 
> document. This document be separate from the current short 'messages' 
> version of IGF outcomes. It might work well to have the messages as an 
> immediate output of the annual event, with this overall outcome report 
> being given a bit more time. It could also be a version of the Chair's 
> report, but it might be more effective to make it a freestanding, 
> neutral, IGF outcome document based.
>
> Step 6
>
> Dissemination of the outcomes of the annual IGF through a "Request for 
> comments" process (this idea is in the Options paper). In this way 
> specific suggestions related to the themes, and the 
> issues/priorities/policy questions identified in the framing paper, 
> can be put out for comment from the broader IGF community.
>
> The outcomes can also be distributed to relevant global, regional and 
> national institutions from all stakeholder groups (including 
> government) as well as to those that are not IGF insiders.
>
> Step 7
>
> The MAG and BPFs and DCs and NRIs can then consider how to respond to 
> the outcomes, and reaction to these outcomes, in their planning for 
> the 2021 IGF.
>
>
-- 
Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner		

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul      flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Instituto de Informática                       Fone: +55-51-3308 9494
Porto Alegre, Brasil                           http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio

Presidente da Internet Society Brasil
flavio at inf.ufrgs.br, info at isoc.org.br          Fone: +55-51-3308 9494
https://www.isoc.org.br                        Twitter: @ISOCBrasil
https://www.facebook.com/isocbrasil/           https://www.youtube.com/isocbrasil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20200813/1b3db18f/attachment.htm>