Taking Stock and the Way Forward (Preview)

Name:
Affiliation(Organization):
 
Did the meeting meet your expectations?
 
What worked well?
The new format allowing common lunch breaks worked well - informal networking and ad hoc meetings are important to the overall success of IGF. Common lunch areas contributed to this.
 
What worked less well?
There were too many sessions which started late, ran overtime, and left little or no time for public discussion. Staggered starting times for workshops created some difficulties in choosing which events to attend, and forcing one to leave some workshops mid stream to attend others
 
What did you think of the new format with main session panels and the open dialogue sessions?
-
 
Did the other workshops and other meetings you attended meet your expectations? Was there sufficient room for interaction with participants?
As mentioned above many workshops started late and many moderators did not control speakers sufficiently to allow public participation.
 
How did you see the linkages between the different types of meetings? Is there room for improvement?
I think there is room for experimentation with different event types. Smaller multi-stakeholder round table discussions on particular subjects might be a good addition, although attendance might have to be limited or by invitation to make some of these these effective.
 
Should all the different types of events be maintained on the programme of the fourth IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh?
Yes, and more event types could be added.
 
Are there any other kind of meeting structures that you think would be useful to consider?
As mentioned above - multi-stakeholder round tables on specific subjects, perhaps with limited or invited attendance. These could contribute greatly and begin to address a few issues in greater detail.
 
Did the ‘IGF Village’ meet your expectations? If not, what can be improved for the next IGF?
Did not use this facility except for one quick visit.
 
Was the discussion space in the ‘IGF Village’ useful?
Did not use this facility.
 
The Secretariat prepared a synthesis paper as the official meeting input document The paper summarized all contributions received and was translated in all six UN languages. Was this paper useful? Should this practice be continued?
Yes, this is a useful and worthwhile preparatory document.
 
If you had one significant improvement to suggest for the next IGF, what would it be?
Ensure that moderators start on time and allow a fixed amount of time for public input in all workshops. A bit more structure here could increase the value of these sessions - some were excellent, but others were very poorly managed.
 
Other suggestions for improvement in view of the Sharm El Sheikh meeting?
-
 
Any other comments or suggestions?
-
 
The Tunis Agenda calls on the UN Secretary-General “to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN membership in the regard”. This consultation will have to take place at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. How should it be prepared?
My personal opinion (which may not be that of the Internet Governance Caucus) is that the consultation needs to engage experts with analysis and evaluation expertise to prepare a report for discussion and circulation to UN membership well before IGF 2009. Widespread consultation will be necessary both with those who attend IGF and those who may not attend but would be considered stakeholders. This effort could be guided by a small multistakeholder group to agree to terms of reference, methodology, questionaires, quantative and qualitative approaches, and other basic aspects of this work. 

Perhaps the consulting team preparing the report could have representatives of stakeholder bodies - this could assist in ensuring that the evaluation takes into account the considerable detailed discussions pre and post WSIS which have led to the current format of IGF. This needs some discussion. However, the report does need some independence from the bodies and maor stakeholder interests which have effectively created IGF as it is today in order to have both greater value and credibility.