The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 29 July - 17 August, 2008. (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, While the feed-back we received - a total of six score cards - was helpful, it is not sufficient to give a clear picture. We nevertheless accumulated the scores we received and also added the Secretariat assessment. We will send out a revised spreadsheet later today. You will see that it lists the workshops in three groups. Like last year, we used different colour coding to mark the different categories: Green: these workshops meet the selection criteria and should be given the green light, so that they can start planning in earnest. , which was helpful, but obviously the sheer number to go through must have been a deterrent for many. Yellow: some elements are missing or need to be clarified before they can approved. Red: the proposal in its present form needs a serious overhaul. We thought of giving roughly 40 proposals the green light at this stage. We now also have a clearer picture as regards the room situation. We have a total of seven workshop rooms - four of them seating 300, two of them 150 and one seating 75. This gives us plenty of flexibility to accommodate most proposals. The question, ultimately, will be whether they will figure in the official programme or not. The main meeting hall accommodates slightly more than 1200 participants. As we expect a strong local participation it will therefore be important that we make maximum use of the other meeting rooms to create overflow capacity. We will leave a number of empty slots to accommodate requests for ad hoc meetings, also coordination meetings of different stakeholder groups and regional groupings. In addition there will be two small meeting spaces for ad hoc meetings, posters sessions, speed dialogue etc in the IGF Village. As we are still dealing with an evolving situation, we are adapting the Web site to the latest developments. This explains the discrepancies with the spreadsheet Adam noticed. However, in order to facilitate your work we will freeze our Website until early next week. In the revised spreadsheet,t the best practices forums are listed separately. We are still in touch with potential organizers of open forums and we also created a new category for 'other meetings'. We have also taken into account the workshop proponents' willingness to cooperate, to reach out to other workshop proponents and their responsiveness to cooperation initiatives. We asked those workshops engaged in a merger to prepare a joint proposal, and we assume that they will be given a slot. Last but not least we checked whether they filed reports and can confirm that among those colour coded green all complied. (Writer A) Sorry for not sending my evaluation. I will do it soon. (IGF Secretariat) Markus asked me to forward the attached score sheets to you all. As he explained, we used different colour coding to mark the different categories: Green: these workshops meet the selection criteria and should be given the green light, so that they can start planning in earnest. , which was helpful, but obviously the sheer number to go through must have been a deterrent for many. Yellow: some elements are missing or need to be clarified before they can approved. Red: the proposal in its present form needs a serious overhaul. Also we have two additional colours that represent workshops that have agreed to merge but have not yet provided us with a consolidated proposal. ATTACHMENT: Workshops Score Sheet (Modified).xls (Writer B) thank you for the score sheets. One or two questions: 1. What is the state of the best practice forums? Will they be all accepted? 2. Are the yellow marked workshops out because we cannot accommodate more workshops than those that got a green mark? (Writer C) Thank you for this additional work, Markus. I apologize for not having my rating to you yet. I am working on it and will get it to you soon. (Markus Kummer) Dear Writer B, An equally quick reaction: > >1. What is the state of the best practice forums? Will they be all >accepted? As we cannot apply the same criteria, we took them out of the workshop categories. I would suggest looking at them individually, judge them on merit and if necessary give them some guidance to make sure that they focus on Internet governance. >2. Are the yellow marked workshops out because we cannot accommodate > >more workshops than those that got a green mark? Nobody is out at this stage. We would like to approve those that are complete and fulfill the criteria. The others still stand a chance if they complete their project proposal. In theory, we can accommodate all workshop proposals. This is something we can discuss more in detail when we meet in September. One way to deal with the strong demand for slots could be to be liberal in the allocation of rooms, but be somewhat stricter with regard to the official programme and only include those that meet a certain quality standard. (Writer D) Thank you for sharing the draft terms of reference. About the review methodology: Interviews are mentioned, questionnaires as a possibility, and that's fine, but I think the process must include an open call for comments, a continuation of the rolling process we have used to date. Such comments should be directed at the issues raised in the evaluation criteria. I hope this would not make the TOR unmanageable, I think it's important to retain the principle of open contributions. Writer E's comment about " Research, using previously written materials, into the expectations of stakeholders prior to the initiation of the IGF." I think this item should be kept, it's directly relevant to the suggested evaluation criteria "What are various stakeholders' expectations of the IGF and to what extent have these expectations been met?" But I understand the concern, it should not be an opportunity for opening old discussions/disagreements, but the key seems to be "using previously written materials", it should approached as a historical study. Writer F' comment: I think an outside review is important and useful, but should not replace any process begun within the forum by forum participants. Markus, as you say, producing "food for thought". The civil society IG caucus has proposed a workshop "The role and mandate of the IGF" in part with the hope of starting a review process within the IGF (we held a workshop on the same theme in Rio.) But I do not agree that discussions about the future of the forum should only take place at the annual meeting, that would be too narrow and exclusive. The meeting of 2009 might be the culmination of discussion, 2010 would be too late if there's to be a 2011. Care needs to be taken with the time available for any government to plan for the potential to organize an IGF in 2011. There are rumors CSTD expects to be involved in the review process, which might introduce some delays (they meet in May, 5/6 months after the IFG.) We need to be careful about the timing, if there's to be a 2011 IGF the host needs to be selected and given ample time to prepare. (Writer A) is there any news about the decision regarding the MAG membership ? (Writer G) thanks for your mention of CSTD involvement. Surely other organizations will also try to join this game of assessment of the IGF at different points in time. So the question strategically can be not whether or if there are going to be external evaluations (i.e. not made by the IGF MAG alone) but which and how many. And, crucially, to which the Secretary General of the UN will pay attention. This would seem to me to favor the carrying on of the World Bank's project, despite how solid Writer F arguments are to my mind (very.) (Writer C) I will attach my first comments to this one, but refer back to previous comments by Writer E, Writer H and Writer F -- I hope that is not too confusing. I have attached a version of Val's draft TOR with some edits and comments inserted. I hope that's readable for all of you. I also confess here to having started my government career as a professional program evaluator, and worked at it for about 6 years, so that may colour my perceptions. I agree with Markus that Writer F has raised the most fundamental point in his note, and I have some sympathy with the notion that the outside evaluation goes beyond what is called for in the WSIS text. This is relevant in light of Writer E's concern (supported by others) that going back to an examination of the Tunis discussions prior to the final text is likely to open old wounds and even encourage reopening the debate. Sticking my neck out a bit, I would say that the debate has not ended in any case, it is now playing out in the IGF and other forums as the different stakeholders try to reshape the Internet governance landscape in various ways. But I agree with Writer E that the TOR have to be *very* carefully stated to avoid opening another front, and one that cannot produce anything more than debate without impact. So, at the risk of paraphrasing Writer F's question, should the evaluation go ahead at all, or should we have another black-box process to produce recommendations to the UN Secretary-General? After carefully re-reading the Tunis text, and thinking at some length about what has happened in the global environment since 2005, as Writer H suggested, I am inclined to think the evaluation has the potential to be a valuable input to the broad "formal consultation with Forum participants." But only if it is done very carefully and very well. By that I mean it will be essential that whoever does the evaluation be (and be accepted by all stakeholders as) truly independent, and that they be working from a TOR that is impeccably unbiased. Neither will be an easy condition to fulfil in this environment. My suggestions in the attached version of the draft TOR are aimed at the second. I have faith that InfoDev can run a process to achieve the first. I wonder if we can make the public comment period and open consultations a measure of the maturity of the multistakeholder process to develop an unbiased set of TOR? I think it is reasonable to fear that asking for comment will, by itself, detract from work on the IGF as various players instead focus on trying to gain advantage in terms of shaping the terms for the evaluation. Again, we need to weigh that very carefully going into this process. I also wonder about the timing of the proposed evaluation. I get that the TA says "within 5 years," which does not preclude doing the study in late 2008 for an early 2009 product. But to be fair, there have so far been 2 IGFs, and this study is to take place partly before and mostly immediately after the 3rd. I don't think that is giving a somewhat experimental entity such as the IGF enough of a chance to take form. After all, we are making significant changes to the format this year, on an admittedly experimental basis, and may do that again. Nor do I think we know yet who are the participants (note for example the plans for increased participation by parliamentarians this year) nor for those who did not come out of the WSIS into the IGF to form an opinion. Even the discussion about how to move forward on lessons learned during the IGF is in a very preliminary stage (see the APC paper on access as backing for this point). To me, it would be more appropriate to put this all on pause for 1 year to let the IGF continue its development, and to let people learn more about what it is, what it can do, who are the participants, and what they think should be its future. Starting the discussion of whether or not to do *an* evaluation during the September open consultations will be valuable and will contribute to the ongoing development of IGF. Starting the discussion of the terms of reference for *the* evaluation at this point seems premature and risky, at least to this observer. (Writer E) Thank you Writer C, for a thoughtful analysis of several aspects of the discussion regarding an external evaluation and the draft TOR. I support your approach stated at the end of the message below for the discussion in September, and would refrain from posting any draft TOR at this juncture: "To me, it would be more appropriate to put this all on pause for 1 year to let the IGF continue its development, and to let people learn more about what it is, what it can do, who are the participants, and what they think should be its future. Starting the discussion of whether or not to do *an* evaluation during the September open consultations will be valuable and will contribute to the ongoing development of IGF. Starting the discussion of the terms of reference for *the* evaluation at this point seems premature and risky, at least to this observer." (Markus Kummer) In light of the feed-back received we will refrain from posting the draft TOR for an external evaluation and asking for comments. Instead, we will put the review process in general terms on the agenda for the September consultations. The external review will be a sub-item under this agenda item. At this stage, it is useful to start the discussion on the review process. Let me add a few thoughts on this issues. While the Tunis Agenda is fairly precise in this matter, there is nevertheless room for interpretation and a need for discussing how the paragraphs related to the review need can to be translated into action. A few elements are given: The actors: -The Secretary General (he is charged with examining "the desirability of the continuation of the Forum") - Forum participants (they are to be consulted) - UN Membership: the Member States are to take a decision, based on recommendations by the Secretary-General The timing: para 76 states: "within five years of its creation". Presumably, this means the date when the Secretary-General convened the first meeting of the Forum, in July 2006. The review therefore needs to take place no later than July 2011. However, the Tunis Agenda allows for the review to take place earlier. A review process should leave the door open and should not prejudge a decision in either way. Should it be delayed until the last moment, it would have a negative impact on the IGF. A decision in this regard should be taken by the end of 2010 at the latest, should there be a general desire for a 2011 meeting. The UN Membership takes decisions in the framework of the annual General Assembly which meets each year between September and December. Decisions by the GA need to be prepared by subsidiary bodies: in this case the CSTD and ECOSOC. For the GA to be able to take a decision by the end of 2010, the Secretary-General will need to submit his recommendations as part of his annual report on the WSIS Follow-up to the CSTD. This report is prepared early each year. The elements for the Secretary-General's recommendations therefore need to be ready by late 2009. Para 76 mentions that there is a need for "formal consultations with Forum participants". Does this relate to the annual meeting or to the regular consultations in Geneva? It would be safe to assume that this para relates to the participants at the Forum itself, as this is a far broader community than the 'IGF insiders' who attend the Geneva meetings. Should this be the general reading of this para, then the 2009 meeting in Egypt will need to include a slot in the programme for these "formal consultations with Forum participants." This is my reading of the situation. Any other views are welcome. I will also ask the legal services of the UN to give us their interpretation. The Tunis Agenda leaves open how the "formal consultations with Forum participants" should be prepared and carried out. We thought an external input into this process in form of an evaluation could be helpful. In any case, we should start "examining the desirability of the continuation of the Forum" at the open consultations in May 2009 at the latest. (Writer I) Here are my five cents to the debate: The original idea was to put the IGF into the general WSIS package with 2015 as the timeline for evaluation.If I remember correctly, the last minute discussion of PrepCom3++ in Tunis around the IGF watered this down. When an agreement was reached that the IGF should not get a decision making capacity but should be a platform for discussion some governments argued for a possibility to have a mid-term opportunity to opt out in case IGF does not work. What we have seen so far is that after two IGFs "the innovation" works (more or less). In summer 2008 ECOSOC, based on a resolution of the UNCSTD defined the IGF as an "innovative platform". In its chapter on "success and shortcomings in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes" Paragraph 18 says that ECOSOC "takes note with appreciation of the ongoing work in the IGF, its multistakeholder approach and its innovative platform and thanks host governments for their contribution". And it recommends in para. 27 that the IGF "as a multi-stakeholder forum, shall retain its focus on public policy issues related to Internet Governance". My reading of this para (under the title of the relevant section) is, that ECOSOC sees the IGF more as a "success" of the WSIS process and not as "shortcomings" (there are many others ;-((( like DSF). Its less than half way now. But the tone of the resolution, adopted by 193 UN member states is obviously more positiv than negative. As Markus has outlined, there is a need that the UNSG and the GA have to agree (formally or informally) before end of 2010 that the IGF can continue. To enable UNSG and GA to move foreward some substance has to be generated. This can be done in various ways, from heavy weight to light weight, formally or informally. MAG´s role in this process should be mainly to facilitate the informal/formal discussion/evaluation process. This can be designed also as a phased process. In Phase one we could have a questionnaire with simple questions for all stakeholders. Such a questionnaire could be developed by the Secretariat in consultation with the MAG and discussed during a special workshop in Hyderabad. In the light of the feed back, the IGF open consultations in February 2009 could discuss whether there is a need for a second phase of (more formal) discussion/evaluation. With other words, we should keep the process at this stage as flexible as possible. Anyhow I think there is a need that the forthcoming IGF September consultation should raise the issue and collect inputs from all stakeholders. Another point is that it would be helpful to have soon a decision on the site for the 2010 meeting. At this moment we have two candidates. One compromise would be to offer to one of the two candidates to host a 2011 IGF. (Writer C) Sorry to be so late on this, and even now the comments are incomplete, but here is a best effort on rankings. Comments are of course subject to Chatham House rules, or I would not have been as frank. A couple of notes: The ISOC proposal of a workshop on IXPs intends to merge with the PCH workshop only, as I understand it. I worry about excessive duplication -- IGF is to avoid it, and by extension I would think the workshops should try to do the same. Happy to discuss further. In any case, best of luck to the Secretariat -- this is a very difficult task. Your work is very much appreciated. FILE ATTACHED (Writer C) sorry to say, I sent the wrong version -- a couple of additional comments are here... FILE ATTACHED (Writer D) Following up on Writer A's question, has there been any news from the SG's office about MAG membership? Time really is running out. I understand email has been sent to some workshop organizers saying they have been accepted or provisionally accepted. Could you confirm status of all workshops. Also, could you provide information about the groups working on the main session workshops. I've volunteered to help with Access and CIR, but have only seen activity around the CIR session on IPv4/v6 transition. Would be good to know what's happening for all. (Writer J) It will be helpful if we learn about our status as members of the Advisory Group at this stage. I therefore associate myself with the question posed by Writer A. (Writer K) It will be helpful if i know the membership renewal status. Based on that i can plan for the next Geneva & Hyderabad meeting. (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, Please find below the email we sent out to all workshop proponents, updating them on the pre-selection process. Best regards Markus Dear workshop proponents, Many thanks for submitting proposals for the next IGF meeting to be held in Hyderabad. Like last year, we have made a pre-selection of workshops, based on recommendations from the MAG, in order to give organizers enough time to prepare for the event. We applied common selection criteria to all proposals, taking into consideration various criteria such as relevance, geographical diversity, reflection of the multistakeholder approach and diversity of views represented among the panellists. We also took into account organizers willingness to cooperate, to reach out to other workshop proponents and their responsiveness to cooperation initiatives and also ,whether or not they had organized workshops before and filed workshop reports. Merged workshops were given priority and other merged workshops will be included in the list once they come to an agreement. Please find attached a list of workshop proposals that in our view reflect the basic IGF principles and are relevant to the agenda of the meeting. We have adopted a colour code format to indicate the results of the pre-selection process as follows: - The green category indicates workshops, which will be allocated a slot at the IGF in Hyderabad. - The amber category indicates workshops, which are a little bit under the threshold and need to undergo further refinement before being allocated a slot (either the proposal is not yet complete or it has not found favour with some MAG members and may need to be reworked); - The red category indicates workshops which require more substantive work to be put into them, before they can be accepted (either the concept needs to be reworked, or the workshop needs to be merged with other workshops). The other colour codes are to identify workshops in the process of merging. Please note that this is not a final assessment, but rather a work in progress. The list is a 'positive list' of workshop proposals which offer solid prospects for staging interesting and successful events. We have not drawn up a 'negative list' of proposals we are rejecting. All workshops still stand a chance of being chosen. We have shifted some proposals into the category of Best Practices Forums, as they fit in better there. The Best Practices Forum organizers will be informed at a later stage. The selection process will be finalized at the next MAG Meeting in September, taking into account the discussions during the Open Consultations. Best regards, The IGF Secretariat ATTACHED FILE: Workshops_coded.xls (Markus Kummer) I understand that you are anxious to have news about the MAG renewal. I have passed on these collective concerns to HQ and hope that an announcement will be made soon. >I understand email has been sent to some workshop >organizers saying they have been accepted or >provisionally accepted. Could you confirm status >of all workshops. It was our intention to send out the email we sent to all workshop proponents to the MAG list more or less simultaneously. An internal communication problem, caused by an overactive spam filter, caused the delay. My apologies. > >Also, could you provide information about the >groups working on the main session workshops. >I've volunteered to help with Access and CIR, but >have only seen activity around the CIR session on >IPv4/v6 transition. Would be good to know what's >happening for all. There has been very little activity in this regard, mainly due to the summer break in the northern hemisphere. I will update the list on the state of play later this week and at the same time I would like to make use of this opportunity to ask those who volunteered to be involved in the main session workshop to inform us about their efforts so far. (Writer L) As I informed you in an earlier message - and now make public to the MAG -, the proponents of workshops 74 (which includes the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations and myself as a MAG member) and 46 are undertaking converstions with the organizers of the workshop "Bottom-up policymaking in the Regional in the Regional Internet Registries to address IPv4 depletion and IPv6 transition" in order to merge and provide basis for the main session workshop on "arrangements for Internet governance - global/regional/local". Invited to participate, Ambassador David Gross said the US Department of State agrees on joining us in the debate if this proposal succeeds. As the southern hemisphere is not on vacations (:-)), Writer A and I are planing to talk on this subject in an upcoming event in Montevideo. Warm regards, (Writer C) I was speaking to Markus recently, and he asked me if I would be willing to undertake coordination of the second part of the Critical Internet Resources main session, presently titled "Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional." I have agreed to take it on, but of course will need support from the rest of the group to make sure we have a productive and balanced session on this sometimes difficult subject. I have reviewed the workshop proposals with Markus and, as a starting point, three seem to offer the greatest potential to form a basis: 1. Understanding Internet Infrastructure: an Overview of Technology and Terminology from Packet Clearing House, and 2. Enhanced Cooperation - What was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is its current status from IT for Change 3. Legal Aspects of Governance of Critical Internet Resources Functions – Contributing to Capacity Through Legal Analysis from the World Bank All three of these relate directly to the topic, do not seem to stray too far into territory already occupied, and are being proposed by stakeholders with a positive history of involvement with the IGF. Of course, as the agenda takes shape it may take on a shape of its own. I propose to contact the proponents of these three workshops to see if they are prepared to join in organizing the main session workshop on critical Internet resources, and report back to you. In the meantime, I would be happy to hear comments and suggestions. (Writer C) Thanks, Writer L. sorry to hear you are having problems with the system. I've now seen your message to the group as well, and of course the points you raise below are the essence of bringing different stakeholders together to organize a workshop. I will wait until I hear from Writer A, but can assure you of my interest in ensuring that we have a balanced, informative and productive workshop. (Writer L) Dear Writer C, Nice to know of your interest on this topic. I sent the message attached below to the group last week and tried to re-send it this (Brazilian) morning. Owing to technical constraints with the secretariat servers that Markus explained today to the list and may still remain - it did not reach the group in due time. (By the way, I count on Markus and the Secretariat to make this one reach you all...). At that moment, I volunteered to help with the organization of this partucular main workshop and suggested a merger list. The Brazilian Ministry of External Relations (having myself as a MAG member) is a co-sponsor of the workshop prposal "Enhanced Cooperation - What was meant by the Tunis Agenda, and what is its current status", alongside with "IT for Change", and I am very glad to know that you also consider it a candidate to integrate the main workshop. Our proposals, however, diverge with respect to the workshops that should merge with it. I also highlighted conversations undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders on the matter. Since my proposal includes a workshop sponsored by LACNIC and Writer A, also a MAG member, I think he might have something to add. (Writer G) thanks for moving this forward. In particular I think it necessary to comment about your proposal to include the workshop draft on "enhanced cooperation" put forward by "IT for Change" as a basis for a merged workshop. I have two points against this: 1. asking "what was meant by enhanced cooperation" seems to lead to an exercise in exegesis ("interpretation of sacred texts", among other meanings) which this Multistakeholder Advisory Group has already considered improductive and refused to do, in connection with the evaluation exercise proposed by Markus. It does not seem productive to make this exercise broader in audience and scope. 2. the discussions of the representatives of "IT for Change" are on record online - profusely and extensively - and show both a deep shortness of understanding of the subject and its context, and an inflexible resistance to listening to what others have to say, as well as an almost genetic exclusionary spirit which also does not allow to forecast a successful contribution to the IGF, which is based on a need of tolerance to diverse points of view and an ability to arrive at a synthesis of them. (Writer B) I understand you would not be pleased with an exegetic exercise aiming at figuring out what "enhanced cooperation" was meant to be. My suggestion would be to communicate to the participants of the CIR session just that. I don't understand why this should be impossible since I am pretty sure that "exegesis" is not what the original idea of the workshop was about. (Writer G) thanks a lot for your note. I bow to your superior knowledge of the intentions of the workshop. So, what is it about? (Markus Kummer) Without going into your comments on the main workshop, allow me a quick reaction to your reference to the outside evaluation. >>> 1. asking "what was meant by enhanced cooperation" seems to lead >to an >>> exercise in exegesis ("interpretation of sacred texts", among >other >>> meanings) which this Multistakeholder Advisory Group has already >considered >>> improductive and refused to do, in connection with the evaluation >exercise >>> proposed by Markus. It does not seem productive to make this >exercise >>> broader in audience and scope. Indeed, I suggested a broad-based discussion on ToR for an outside reference. There was some resistance to the proposal, but no conclusive consensus that we should not go ahead. We live in a free world and anybody can go ahead making an evaluation, with or without the approval of the MAG. As we will have to prepared a broad-based collective review exercise, any input will be welcome. Ovbviously, we prefer to have the support of the community for our projects and we hope to have a constructive discussion on this proposal at our next meeting.