[WG-Strategy] Thoughts on IGF outcomes for 2020

[Poncelet Ileleji Jokko Banjul]

Thanks Anriette,

Thank you @Bill for the brilliant comments.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

*Poncelet O. Ileleji*
*Jokkolabs Banjul -  Lead*
*Sait Matty Road, Bakau, Adjacent to Swedish Consulate*
*KMC, The Gambia*
*P O Box 4496 Bakau,KMC, The Gambia*
*Skype: pons_utd*
*Tel Direct Office: +220 4495115*

*Tel Mobile/Whatsapp: +220 9912508*
*www.jokkolabs.net* <http://www.jokkolabs.co>

*LinkedIn: Jokkolabs Banjul*
*Facebook: Jokkolabs Banjul*
*Twitter: @jklBanjul*




On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:33 AM Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

> 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 Groupwww.intgovforum.org
>
> Senior advisor global and regional internet governance
> Association for Progressive Communicationswww.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> 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
> ***********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200821/845a6d3d/attachment.htm>