[WG-Strategy] Thoughts on IGF outcomes for 2020

Fri Aug 21 04:50:28 EDT 2020

Dear Flavio.. thanks a lot for the feedback. Very valuable.

I am working with the Secretariat and MAG members on an expedited 2020
process that includes as many of the elements discussed here as possible
- but we should continue to work on a more generic discussion document.
I will do this by integrating your and Bill's idea in a next version a
'thoughts on outcomes' document.

Best

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 2020/08/13 23:53, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20200821/ba07d83c/attachment.htm>