NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND YOUTH IGF INITIATIVES
- Virtual Meeting II, 28 March 2018, 14:00 p.m. UTC -
1. The 2nd virtual meeting of the National, Regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), took place on 28 March 2018 at 14:00 p.m. UTC.
2. The meeting was hosted by the IGF Secretariat’s NRIs Focal Point, Anja Gengo. Agenda is attached to this document as Annex A1 and a list of Meeting Participants as Annex A2. The list of shared documents is attached to this report as Annex A3.
3. The Host asked the participants to review the shared agenda for its final approval. From the IGF-USA, it was suggested to add under the AoB, a feedback on the NRIs Collaborative Sessions from the 2017 IGF and plans for the 2018 IGF. With this addition, the agenda was adopted (Annex A1).
Summary of key points
4. The Host reminded that a full report from the first IGF 2018 Open Consultations and MAG meeting was shared via the NRIs mailing list, available at the IGF website: https://www.intgovforum.org/filedepot_download/6038/1097
5. The NRIs Focal Point outlined some of the most important references made to the NRIs during the IGF 2018 Open Consultation (OC) and the MAG meeting (Annex A3):
• NRIs not to be referred as part of the IGF intersessional work
• NRIs are important collaborative-work partners to the IGF
• NRIs to be partners in disseminating calls for inputs; other items that require community’s attention/consultations
• Should/how the IGF focus on helping to fund the NRIs work?
• NRIs to help in developing the intersessional work
• NRIs to develop their own intersessional work
• How do the NRIs report to the IGF and among themselves?
On this item, the Host explained that the IGF Secretariat explained to the present stakeholders that the NRIs are independent, and that there are no reporting mechanisms or any type of hierarchy. All NRIs act on equal footing and feed into each other’s work, where appropriate.
• NRIs inputs and individual work to be in synchronization
• IGF Call for Issues: to learn from NRIs best practices; to explore different models (e.g. EuroDIG and SEEDIG model; LACIGF model etc.)
6. It was noted that one of the biggest outcomes from the IGF 2018 OC&MAG Meeting was the Call for Issues, as explained at the IGF website: https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2018-call-for-issues# All NRIs were invited to contribute with issues of relevance for their respective communities by 13 April.
7. Specifically, for the launched Call for Issues, it was said that the inspiration came from some of the NRIs processes. Practices from EuroDIG, SEEDIG, LACIGF and African IGF, were shared and discussed during the face-to-face meeting of the MAG, and on a later stage through the mailing list, a roadmap of the Arab IGF. The IGF Secretariat and the Chair of the MAG proposed a model that gathers best practices from mentioned NRIs adjusted to the IGF.
8. From the IGF-USA, concerns were raised regarding some stakeholders expressing suggestions that the NRIs annual meetings should be better synchronized, as the organization of meetings depends on many factor, where the main one is the input from the community, on the best timing. It was underlined that this suggestion does not go in line with applying the bottom up principle. It was advised that the NRIs share their approximate dates, which may be of help to other NRIs for orienting their meetings and avoid scheduling meetings on a same day.
9. Several participants followed the above summarized comment indicating that having a calendar of the NRIs annual meetings is useful for having an overview of the scheduled NRIs meetings. The Host reminder that the calendar is available at the IGF website: https://www.intgovforum.org/content/nris-20172018-annual-meetings
10. The IGF-USA co-coordinator further noted that the Call for Issues, described above, is a positive and progressive activity of the IGF. However, it is unfortunate that not all NRIs practices were explored, but just from a few regional IGFs.
11. Related to some IGF community stakeholders asking for a set of short consolidated information about the NRI, to be presented to potential donors for funding the NRIs individual and joint work, it was said that the IGFSA is committed to a certain extent, to support the work of the NRIs. It was noted ny the IGF-USA co-coordinator, that the UN Trust Fund can not be an effective channel for providing this kind of a support to the NRIs, due to its internal procedures.
12. The Host invited everyone to comment on the next agenda item regarding the NRIs mailing list and potential changes. The Host noted that previous NRIs consultations indicate that a potential consensus based view could be in creating a new mailing list, followed by an appropriate set of guidelines, and to keep the current mailing list open to everyone for postings related to the NRIs matters outside of the joint work scope.
13. The IGF-USA co-coordinator intervened saying that the position of this national IGF is to have one list, that will serve as a work space for the NRIs coordinators. It was added that the archives of this list will be publically available. This co-coordinator proposed to look at the example of the ICANN’s working group, where there is one unique mailing list, with three categories of subscribers: members with full positing privileges, participants with posting privileges and observers without posting privileges. It was further explained that those without posting privileges have the option to send their posts to the staff to be published on the list.
14. From Ecuador IGF it was added that the current list is moderated, and all emails are subject to moderator’s approval, and that this excludes anyone from posting. The Host explained that the list is moderated just for the purposes of preventing spam email reaching the subscribers; however, all relevant emails are approved. From recently, the coordinator’s postings are not subject to any moderation.
15. The Croatia IGF co-coordinator noted that this national IGF is in favour for having one list.
16. From the Colombia IGF, the coordinator added that it is important to have archives open and available to public.
17. A member of ISOC added that the list should comply with the GDPR, to what the IGF-USA co-coordinator added that there should be an opt-in/opt-out option.
18. Given all so far received inputs, the Host suggested that the consultations among the NRIs on this subject matter are extended until everyone express their views, that hopefully will help in understanding the consensus based view. No objections were expressed toward this suggestion.
19. Participants moved to discussing the deadline for submitting the three topics of interest, for determining the topic of the NRIs joint session at the IGF 2018 annual meeting. It was agreed that the NRIs will try submitting the inputs by the end of April (or 4-weeks deadline since this report is published). Some advised this to be a soft deadline, with possible extension for those in need for more time. Upon several questions, the Host explained that the methodology for defining three topics of interest is an internal matter of the NRIs, given their independency.
20. It was agreed that a formal email on this matter will follow, for the NRIs to share with their core organizing teams. Participants advised for the IGF Secretariat to create a form for submitting three topics, similar to last year’s practice.
21. The Host provided a brief overview of the development for the NRIs second publication: Looking at the NRIs processes. It was sais that all 2016 and 2017 reports of the regional and sub-regional IGFs have been reviewed; while the review of the national IGFs is underway. Concerns were raised on a number of 2017 report shared with the IGF, given that there were 70 NRIs annual meetings and so far only 22 were submitted. All NRIs were kindly invited to share their annual reports with the wider IGF community through the IGF Secretariat.
22. The ISOC member added that it would be useful to discuss the ways of NRIs providing inexpensive and effective remote participation. The Host expressed agreement with this very important aspects of participating at the NRIs meetings, and advised to post to the mailing list related advises from this expert’s point of view and experience.
23. There was an agreement among the participants, that the list of the NRIs coordinators should be publicly available, subject to further consultations with other NRIs.
24. A brief feedback was provided on the importance of the NRIs collaborative sessions, where many participants said that these very useful for the NRIs, as they provided new perspectives into the IGF, but also created long-term linkages among some of the NRIs. It was noted that this message should be conveyed to the IGF MAG, with expressing hope that the NRIs will be given an opportunity for the integration into the IGF 2018 programme. Some NRIs noted that the MAG faces challenges with having too many sessions, but that however, this will not affect the NRIs participation at the 13th annual meeting of the IGF.
25. A full summary report will be sent to the NRIs mailing list, for further consultations.
26. The IGF Secretariat will communicate on the specific matters where it was agreed that further consultations are needed (status of the mailing list; public list of the NRIs coordinators), and send separate email calling for input submissions (three topics for the NRIs Joint Session at the IGF 2018).
27. Next meeting: A doodle poll will be sent in two weeks-time, for scheduling the next virtual meeting.
28. For any suggestions or questions regarding the Report, kindly contact the IGF Secretariat, NRIs Focal Point at: [email protected].
AGENDA: Virtual Meeting II, 28 March 2018, at 14:00 p.m. UTC
2. IGF2018 1st Open Consultations&MAG Meeting: NRIs reflections (IGF Secretariat’s summary report to the NRIs) + Q&A
3. NRIs mailing list: potentially creating new mailing list and a set of guidelines
4. NRIs Joint/Main Session: submitting inputs for determining topic
5. Status of the NRIs 2nd Publication
6. NRIs updates
7. AoB (e.g. list of NRIs coordinators to be publicly available)
1. Ana Baptista, Portugal IGF
2. Anja Gengo, IGF Secretariat
3. Barrack Otieno, Kenya IGF
4. Carlos Vera, Ecuador IGF
5. Concettina Cassa, Italy IGF
6. Dustin Phillips, IGF-USA
7. Frederico Links, Namibia IGF
8. Jennifer Chung, APrIGF
9. Joly MacFie, ISOC, USA
10. Judith Hellerstein, IGF-USA
11. Julian Casasbuenas G., Colombia IGF
12. Keisuke Kamimura, Japan IGF
13. Lianna Galstyan, Armenia IGF, SEEDIG
14. Maheeshwara Kirindigoda, Sri Lanka IGF
15. Makane Faye, Africa IGF
16. Mahamat Silim Moustapha, Mauritius IGF
17. Marilyn Cade, IGF-USA
18. Mark Carvell, UK IGF
19. Markus Kummer, IGFSA, Switzerland
20. Mary Uduma, Nigeria IGF, West Africa IGF
21. Michel TCHONANG LINZE, Central Africa IGF
22. Natasa Glavor, Croatia IGF
23. Nick Wenban-Smith, UK IGF
24. Roberto Zambrana, Bolivia IGFF
25. Rory Kelly, UK IGF
26. Sorina Teleanu, SEEDIG
27. Susan Chalmers, IGF-USA
28. Tian Luo, China IGF China
29. Ying-Chu Chen, observer
30. Youssouf Abdelrahim, Chad IGF
31. Zoraida Frias, Spain IGF
LIST OF SHARED INPUTS, available at the .pdf format of the report HERE.