[WG-Strategy] Thoughts on IGF outcomes for 2020

[Matthew Shears]

Agree with much of what has been said.

There is a step/institutional relationship that has not been addressed 
and that is the interaction with the HLB (or whatever it becomes).  How 
would they be integrated into this process?

W/r/t the IGF itself, I would suggest that the HLB and the MAG meet for 
an open roundtable discussion one half day or something similar.

Matthew

On 21/08/2020 15:43, Raúl Echeberría wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> - I basically agree with Anriette’s proposal. It is a good basis for 
> discussion and surely something very close to a final proposal.
>
> - I also agree with Bill’s comment regarding point 1.
>
> That’s the way we dealt with the discussion at NetMundial. When Demi 
> Getschko and myself met as co-chairs of the executive committee of NM 
> for the first time, we made (i think) one very important decision. We 
> considered exactly these 2 options (the one described by Anriette in 
> her point 1 and the one proposed by Bill). We finally decided to start 
> from a blank page and asking stakeholders to make contributions on the 
> topics that should be covered by NM.
>
> In my humble opinion, that was one of the key decisions for the 
> success of NM. I support taking this approach for IGF outcomes.
>
> - I agree with Flavio’s comments on point 4. The Eurodig model is very 
> good. They have independent and trained rapporteurs who share their 
> conclusions and notes at the end of each session. So the attendees 
> have the chance to make observations if they think that some points 
> have not been properly captured. It sounds like there is a risk to re 
> open all the discussions, but to be frank, it works quite well.
>
>
> - I would add another step between 4 and 5. (not thinking only in 2020 
> but as more permanent mechanism)
>
> If we are able to work in real time, we can have a draft of the 
> outcomes ready to be considered by a high level meeting at the end of 
> the IGF. Even if, of course, the document needs to be edited and 
> polished later. But at the end of the IGF we could have a fairly 
> complete outcome document, with the legitimacy provided by the high 
> level discussion.
>
> - Finally, I think that step 6 is very important and Bill’s comments 
> on this point are also good.
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Raúl
>
>
>
>
>> El 16 ago. 2020, a las 06:12, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> escribió:
>>
>> 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/>
>> ***********************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200825/dfba26ac/attachment.htm>