MAG Chair activities

Date

‎Wednesday 21 October 2020, 13:00-15:00 UTC

Overview of topic

This session will consider how the IGF can evolve towards more focused policy ‎discussions which lead to outcomes that can be then be considered by decision-‎making bodies. ‎

It will also consider the challenge of how to frame the IGF outputs when not all ‎stakeholders or views are represented in the sessions that produce them. Equally, ‎BPFs and DCs can only be said to represent the views of those who participate ‎‎(and generally have specific interests for doing so). That's not to say that any ‎policy recommendations that come out of such sessions or processes are invalid. ‎But it can be used to question their value and legitimacy. This session will discuss ‎the challenges the IGF faces in producing multiple outcomes and policy ‎suggestions, from multiple sources, without any single way of having a ‎community-wide endorsement of the outputs.‎

Questions that discussants will be asked to respond to:

1.  Has there been sufficient evolution in the issues and environment and the perspectives of states and stakeholders to make well-crafted collective outcomes a welcome addition to the global environment?

2.  For what sorts of issues in which sorts of contexts could collectively expressed outcomes help to fill gaps in the international institutional architecture and help to set the agendas of decision-making bodies?  What could be the potential value-added, for whom?

3.  Would it be possible for the IGF to “adopt” collective outcomes without a significantly enhanced inter-sessional work program, e.g. as is sketched in the MAG WG Discussion Document?  If not, how could such a work program be constructed?

4. What institutional form seems most suitable to serve a well-defined purpose?
a) “Recommendations:” Some actors have advocated IGF adoption as per the Tunis Agenda, while others have felt that this would require something akin to negotiations and have too much of a “soft law” character
b) “Messages:” Can capture the sense of discussions without requiring negotiations, but their practical significance can be questioned.
c) “Opinions:” These have been employed in some other international bodies and arguably have less “bite” than recommendations, although they would still require diverse actors coming together and agreeing on text.
d) “Options for Action:” There could be several options listed side-by-side and different states and stakeholders could align themselves with whichever best reflects their views. This could attenuate any “negotiation dynamics” and all diverse expressions of view that decision-making bodies could take into account in setting their agendas.

5.  What role, if any, might the proposed MHLB play in creating or promoting any outcomes reached?

6.  Other questions suggested by participants.

Discussion leads

Moderator: Dr. William Drake, University of Zurich

Discussants:

Fiona Alexander, Distinguished Policy Strategist, School of International Service, American University in Washington, DC

Paul Charlton, Senior Policy Advisor, International Telecommunications and Internet Policy Directorate, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) and member of the IGF MAG

Samantha Dickinson, IGF Secretariat

Raul Echeberria, member of the IGF WG-strategy

Markus Kummer, co-coordinator, IGF Dynamic Coalitions and past IGF MAG chair and IGF Executive Secretary

Wai Min Kwok, Senior Governance and Public Administration Officer, UNDESA

Timea Suto, ICC-Basis and member of the IGF MAG

Flavio Wagner, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br and member of the IGF WG-strategy

Co-conveners

MAG chair and IGF MAG-WG strategy

Date

Tuesday 27 October 2020, 13:00-15:00 UTC

Overview of topic

In 2019 the IGF Secretariat commissioned the development of a framework for ‎IGF-based capacity building. A research study gathered input from members of the ‎IGF community and resulted in the creation of a draft framework. The purpose of this discussion ‎will be to present this framework for open and interactive discussion among IGF ‎stakeholders, in particular those concerned with capacity development.‎ This discussion will also look at the UN SG's broader digital cooperation process, and related efforts by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to create a joint facility for digital capacity development and explore how the IGF can interact with and support this process.

The draft framework for IGF-based capacity development is available at: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/3813/2273

The report on the needs assessment is at: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/filedepot_download/3813/2274

Discussion leads

Moderator: Ben Wallis (IGF MAG and member of WG-Strategy)

IGF Secretariat and members of the DC on Schools of Internet Governance and of ‎the UNDP and ITU initiative related to the UNSG’s HLPDC report (tbc)‎

Co-conveners

MAG chair and IGF Secretariat and MAG WG-Strategy

Register for the discussion

https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMvcuGvqDorGNxzHkmZXO7SSJeI6a3I6egE

Date

Wednesday 28 October 2020, 13:00-15:00 UTC

Register for the discussion

https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUlcu2vrjovGt10dTfw7e99QgPKbyZqfNYr

Overview of topic

An overview of efforts the IGF is currently making to respond to the goal to be ‎inclusive and affirm linguistic diversity. However, simply providing translation ‎into UN languages of some documents and interpretation at certain sessions, is not ‎only not enough, it could also consolidate the marginalisation of other languages ‎and the people that speak them. Should the IGF make greater use of machine ‎translation? Are there other emerging technologies the IGF should consider using ‎to achieve more inclusion and linguistic diversity.‎

Discussion leads

Members of the MAG WG- on language (tbc)‎

Co-conveners

MAG chair and IGF MAG WG-strategy and IGF MAG WG on language ‎

Overview of topic

Discussion on frameworks for addressing emerging Internet issues. Several ‎organisations and academic institutions are currently developing such frameworks ‎which can have an important impact on how policy is designed.‎

Why is this important? While we have all accepted that the Internet is an essential ‎part of our societies,  it is hard to provide a single definition of what it is. The ‎Internet is not 'one' thing and it is not a monolith. At the same time, in the absence ‎of a definition, it is often hard to analyze its evolution, explain which ‎developments are healthy and which are not, and understand how some ‎approaches could be problematic. On top of that, there is also the tangible danger ‎that the Internet with a capital "I" might simply disappear from the discourse, ‎subsumed by higher level concepts, such Digital economy, Digital transformation, ‎etc..‎

One promising way to address these issues is to look at some of the properties that ‎characterize the Internet. These properties should not be seen in isolation but in ‎conjunction with the benefits they generate. This will allow us to better understand ‎their relationship to the Internet's successful evolution. There are several efforts ‎that follow this approach, for instance the work by the MIT team (W. Lehr, D. ‎Clark et al "Wither the Public Internet"), "The Idealised Internet vs. Internet ‎Realities" by the New America's Cybersecurity Initiative. Finally, the Internet ‎Society work on "Internet Invariants: What Really Matters" and now its further ‎development in the "Critical Properties of the Internet Way of Networking ‎‎(IWN)".‎

The goal of this discussion is to: a. solicit feedback on the properties that are ‎identified by these frameworks and b. to work with the IGF community to identify ‎use cases and case studies that could use such a framework as a guide.‎

Discussion leads

Co-conveners

MAG Chair and the Internet Society ‎

Date

Wednesday 14 October 2020, 13:30-15:30 UTC

Register for the discussion

https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwtdeCoqD4oH9V7VD2P1a8CaOt2i2p5m-SQ

Overview of topic

Based on first draft of research paper being produced by Research ICT Africa and ‎the Internet Society on IGF participation data since 2006. What has been achieved ‎with regard to the Tunis Agenda mandate, and where are the gaps? How can the ‎IGF approach participation and inclusion going forward to address these gaps? ‎This discussion will look at participation and inclusion from two angles: the ‎people and institutions that shape, contribute to and attend the IGF, as well as the ‎content of IGF themes and tracks. The session will also be used to gather views on ‎the relevance of IGF content to participation numbers, including how themes are ‎decided and have helped to make the IGF more focused and raise its profile. Has ‎there been an evolution in themes, do these themes (sufficiently) help to link the ‎IGF with other forums and to achieve its goal of being inclusive, particularly of ‎actors from developing countries?‎

Discussion leads

Anri van der Spuy, Research ICT Africa, Flavio Wagner, past-MAG member, Cgi.br; Jason Muyan, Office of the Under-Secretary-General ‎and Special Advisor on Preparations for the 75th UN Anniversary & the  High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, Anja Gengo, IGF Secretariat, and David Souter, ICTdAssociates

Co-conveners

MAG chair and Research ICT Africa

Date

Tuesday 29 September 2020, 13:00-15:00 UTC

Overview of topic

NRIs can be described as the most significant evolution of the IGF model since the ‎first annual forum held in Athens in 2006. What are the next steps for NRIs? Have ‎they reached the limit of their potential, or can they play a greater and more ‎consistent role in the IGF ecosystem? What opportunities and challenges do an ‎IGF plus model hold for NRIs? Discussion will include reflection on how these ‎intersessional modalities can collaborate with one another and with NRIs building ‎on the Secretariat proposals for collaborative mechanisms between BPFs and NRIs ‎developed in 2020. ‎

Discussion leads

Anja Gengo, IGF Secretariat and convenors of national and regional and youth ‎IGFs

Co-conveners

MAG chair, IGF Secretariat and IGF WG-strategy

Register for the discussion

https://intgovforum.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwufuysrTspHNTfW2ScB1ou1UW...

Relevant documents

Output document from :Consultations run across the National, Regional, Sub-Regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs) on the Report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation/Recommendation 5 A/B/ IGF Plus Model