[WG-Strategy] Thoughts on IGF outcomes for 2020

Fri Aug 21 04:33:14 EDT 2020

Thanks a lot for this input, Bill.

Trying to integrate your ideas with mine in a next draft.

Anriette

Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
Chair, United Nations Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group
www.intgovforum.org

Senior advisor global and regional internet governance
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org//afrisig.org

On 2020/08/16 11:12, William Drake wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (work), wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (private),
>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20200821/6763a19d/attachment.htm>