[WG-Strategy] Thoughts on IGF outcomes for 2020

[William Drake]

Hi

Sorry to be slow to reply on this, summer travels plus I’ve not been sure what to say given that my preferences are probably out of synch with the majority sentiment here. Anyway, I guess I will share a few thoughts just as input.

With regard to holding more focused dialogues and producing more concrete outcomes, I’d prefer a model that combines elements of the NetMundial, the ITU Telecom Policy Forums (in multistakeholder format) and RFC processes.  Some elements of this map with Anriette’s model below, some less so.  Maybe the two could draw on each other a little, maybe not.  Whatever, in schematic forum here’s some first-coffee-of-the-day food for thought.

Step 1

Building on four themes and a few other ‘hot topics’ of the time, the process could start with an open RFC in which states and stakeholders are invited to submit written comments that get posted as per NM. With the help of a consultant, a MAG WG could group and consolidate these and then produce a initial document that characterizes the inputs, discerns areas of most widespread interest, and proposes a couple options based on these for two thematically focused discussions. 

Step 2

Per Anriette, the outcome of step one is shared publicly with IGF stakeholder and other IG institutions for their feedback which is then integrated into a revised draft thematic framing document. The revised framing document sets out two main topics for collective discussions. 

Step 3

Intersessional working groups are formed to deep dive on each of the two and propose elaborations/variations on the relevant bits of text in the draft document.

Step 4

At the meeting, each of the two topics would receive a full day treatment, combining an initial open responses segment with the four lines of speakers, then break-outs to work on redrafting/tweaking (taking into account on site discussions, intersessional work, etc.), then another open discussion segment responding to the break-out outputs and prior doc, then a last session where we try based on the back and forth to agree at least schematic “Opinions” (which are less normative/soft lawish sounding than “Recommendations").  In the likely event that attendees are divided on some key points, one could envision two or more Opinions per topic that people choose to align themselves with.  Groups that support none of the collective opinions could slam together statements of their own that would be presented alongside.   This would at least clarify areas of commonality and difference across participants and provide a basis for further dialogue post-meeting.

In such a formulation, there would necessarily be fewer workshops held on the other two days, selected for relevance to the two topics.  On paragraph outcome statements from these could be presented alongside the relevant opinions.

Alternatively, if this sounds too ambitious to start, one could start by doing a single topic that gets 1 ½ days instead of two topics/days.

A final parallel thought many may oppose, but what the heck: APC and I have both written in the past on the idea of having an intergovernmental day grown out of the high levels, subject to maybe WSIS-style rules of participation so that stakeholders could weigh in at designated times.  One could imagine the utility in terms of promoting governmental engagement, but of course it would mean adding a day to the meeting and being clear that governments should seek to engage the multistakeholder dialogue an endorse the Opinions or offer co-located alternatives rather than running a disjoint process.


Step 5

Per Anriette, post-meeting the Secretariat & independent consultant synthesises the resulting materials into an overall outcome document. 

Step 6

Per Anriette, disseminate the outcomes doc through another "Request for comments" process geared in particular to soliciting feedback from governments, IOs, and other actors that have not been involved much in the previous stages.  These would go up on the website alongside the doc. Ideally, in light of all this some thoughts from the IGF process might filter into work being done in other, decisional contexts; if that happens it could reported back.

Step 7

Could be as AE describes, although I’d separate BPF/DC/NRI follow up efforts from year x from a new process and set of topics for year y.

Obviously, this couldn’t be done for 2020, but maybe the following year….

Perhaps this makes no sense to anyone else of is just seems too rococo to be feasible, in which case, as you were…:-)  But maybe some element of it could worth considering...

Cheers

Bill



> On Aug 11, 2020, at 15:26, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (work), wjdrake at gmail.com (private),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20200816/4b8e5658/attachment.htm>