You are here

Community Feedback questionnaire on the draft IGF Programme Framework chart by the WG-MWP


June Parris
HALAQAH Media
Does the Draft Chart accurately represent the current process of a one-year cycle of the IGF? Why? Why not?:
Yes it does to a certain extent, however there are some grey areas and confusion. There are lapses in communication due to not everyone receiving some critical emails.
1. INPUTS:
a. Are inputs used effectively to ensure that the work of the previous cycle is either continued or concluded?:
Yes, I believe so, however new MAG members need initial training and careful guidelines so as not to step outside of boundaries. A good example was a resent dialogue between members that to me was unnecessary if the correct communication had been done initially. The problem became public and was disconcerting. Documents need to be more accessible, I am aware that most are available on websites. NRI, CENB and DCs should be explained more at the initial meetings. It takes almost an entire year to become up to date on what is happening. The experienced members leave at the 3 year, how can their work carry forward? A document detailing what has been done so far that is more accessible and clear cut could be the solution.
b. Have you seen your suggestions as part of the input process reflected in the IGF annual meeting?: I am sure that there are.
c. Are there any other inputs aside from those listed on the Draft Chart that you think should be considered?: None at this time.
2. MAG MEETING NO. 1:
a. Are there other agenda items the MAG should consider, or goals to achieve, during Meeting No. 1?:
Some extra time for new members and introductions. These were done, but it is rather confusing as to who’s who initially.
b. Are the criteria and procedures clear for choosing BPF topics and other intersessional work streams? If not, what are recommendations for improvement?: Yes, they are. But again, not everyone is understanding of the process.
c. Should the Call for Issues take place before or after Meeting No. 1?: During the meeting, that way we can discuss with one another.
3. VIRTUAL WORK:
a. What improvements can be made to the process and selection criteria for workshop, open forum, and village booth proposals?: I personally though it was rather well done.
4. MAG MEETING NO. 2:
a. Is the process of contributing to the IGF agenda clear and accessible? Why? Why not?: Yes, it is.
b. Is the process of featuring various types of sessions on the IGF agenda clear, transparent, and predictable? Why? Why not?: Yes, it is.
5. IGF EVENT ANNUAL MEETING:
a. Is the process for selection of main session topics and organization of sessions sufficiently clear and transparent?:
This is where it gets a bit confusing. It is not clear that MAG members do not speak at main sessions, in fact what do MAG members actually do?
b. Is the current IGF programme setting process well equipped to discuss new and emerging issues?:
Of course, but sometimes new thinking is dismissed by experienced members and the public. They can be rather dismissive.
6. OUTPUTS:
a. Are these the right existing IGF outputs? Can you give any examples from your community? Can you identify others?:
My community is confused about the process. My community showed interest later in the process. Getting through to them was an exhausting process. Hopefully they will be prepared for 2019 with my help.
b. Do you and/or your community use these outputs? If so, how? If not, why not?:
They try, but do not have international exposure, there are restrictions, because of limited resources and the Government intervention. Approval must be sought before things are put into place, and this takes a long time, government red tape is time consuming.
c. Do you think existing IGF outputs are widely known or accessible enough? What can be improved?:
Not widely known. I believe that if communities are willing to inject change, they will find IGF output, but they take to long to look, in small Island states the problem is small thinking or limited thinking and this retards growth, everyone must think alike. They only need to look and explore and take a risk.
d. Do you think there is a need for further/other outputs?: Not really at this stage.
e. How can the current IGF cycle best build on outputs of past years through a more systematic and inclusive process?: Make sure that policies are documented and accessible.

Shreedeep Rayamajhi
RayZnews
Does the Draft Chart accurately represent the current process of a one-year cycle of the IGF? Why? Why not?:
The Draft chart certainly has ensured better engagement but there are few things which can be tuned to make it work more efficiently
-The NRI group and MAG members synchronization is kind of lacking, the facilitation process needs open and flexible form of communication
-There is a lack of representation and domination of developed countries and lack of representation of least developed countries which needs to be prioritized as it effects the over all process
1. INPUTS:
a. Are inputs used effectively to ensure that the work of the previous cycle is either continued or concluded?:
The inputs are used effectively to ensure the wok of the previous cycle to continue in terms of creating a better engagement and collaborative environment. More focused strategies and communication process needs to be engaged to create a clarity and fluidity. The MAG members need to further collaborate with the regional leaders and their engagement needs to be collaborative for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency.
b. Have you seen your suggestions as part of the input process reflected in the IGF annual meeting?:
Yes, I think the IGF represents the voice of people and from last few years the process is changing but as we said the process is bottoms up, so we need to focus on issues of lower economies with priority to diversity, representation and vulnerable group etc.

c. Are there any other inputs aside from those listed on the Draft Chart that you think should be considered?:
I think we need a certain segment of inclusion of minorities and diversity issues in terms of how MAG can correlate with the current evolving issues. Mutistakeholder is not just about bottoms up approach it’s the overall process of recognition and establishing the values as well which is hugely lacking.
2. MAG MEETING NO. 1:
a. Are there other agenda items the MAG should consider, or goals to achieve, during Meeting No. 1?:
I think there needs to be individual intervention from the MAG members to coordinate with the NRI group or region to shortlist the issues just in case to have a back up plan. Collaboration is the key major of the times issue emerge from the developing nation where least developed countries lack representation and voice even at open call as there is a limitation of capacity and understanding
b. Are the criteria and procedures clear for choosing BPF topics and other intersessional work streams? If not, what are recommendations for improvement?:
The BPF has been very effective in terms of creating a broader picture of internet ecosystem. It needs to be timely coordinated with issues of concern issues and indicator where even new standard can be developed.
c. Should the Call for Issues take place before or after Meeting No. 1?:
The call for issue should happen before the meeting no 1 as it helps to further create basis of identifying the core issues.
3. VIRTUAL WORK:
a. What improvements can be made to the process and selection criteria for workshop, open forum, and village booth proposals?:
1. Next generation promoting themes should be prioritized
2. Least developed countries proposal and participation needs to be prioritized
3. Lack of representation matters and ASIA pacific lacks in Number except for the IGF happening in the region
4. We want more leaders from Asia pacific in the MAG process
5. MAG communication needs to open in terms of setting up a broad strategy highlighting collaborative leadership in terms of effective operation and management of supporting

4. MAG MEETING NO. 2:
a. Is the process of contributing to the IGF agenda clear and accessible? Why? Why not?:
The process is very clear in terms of its operation. I think the priority is not just about working from a center point only, the point is about reaching the end point and having the growth from there.
Especially in developing and lower economies there is a huge lack of information about mutistakeholder process and collaborative leadership which at times hinders the over all process. So, this issue needs focus in terms of identifying the indicators.


b. Is the process of featuring various types of sessions on the IGF agenda clear, transparent, and predictable? Why? Why not?:
The whole point of making the IG process in a more transparent way is to help people understand and can create better understanding of the IGF Process. The standardization of the IG in context of today has various understanding and the debate goes on whether the mutistakeholder process of IGF is right or wrong. The main thing is not about how we can make the process more transparent the whole idea is to make it so simple and easy that people start working their way in.

Right now the overall MAG process is kind of complicated in context of the individual stakeholder, We need to recognized the minority group and their voices and bring them to the table.

5. IGF EVENT ANNUAL MEETING:
a. Is the process for selection of main session topics and organization of sessions sufficiently clear and transparent?:
The process is very clear, but it is directly affected by the configuration of the MAG representation which at times is subjected to developed and developing countries at most.
b. Is the current IGF programme setting process well equipped to discuss new and emerging issues?:
The limitation of having limited MAG members from Developed and developing nation limits the voice of the lower economies /Least developed countries. As mutistakeholder is a bottom’s up approach we need to prioritized lower economies issues and MAG members from lower economies.

6. OUTPUTS:
a. Are these the right existing IGF outputs? Can you give any examples from your community? Can you identify others?:
As I said above the overall concept of mutistakeholder needs a recognition of the minority stakeholder as when we are saying bottom up approach and priority of the least developed country. We cannot see their representation. There are various barriers of stakeholders where mostly only developed and developing nation representatives are idealized. If the IG process is bottoms up we need representation of minority group and representation.

b. Do you and/or your community use these outputs? If so, how? If not, why not?:
Yes, we have been using these feedbacks in the national level practice, where we have identified the minority groups and have created groups to voice the issue of concern.
c. Do you think existing IGF outputs are widely known or accessible enough? What can be improved?:
The IGF outputs are kind of limited to documents and achieves which can be used in various ways of creating policy. It needs to be idealized in various other IG process at national and regional level. it needs to have the clarity of use and operation as well.
d. Do you think there is a need for further/other outputs?: No,
e. How can the current IGF cycle best build on outputs of past years through a more systematic and inclusive process?:
The learnings from the past needs to be idealized to adapt the future giving space and existence to various economies in context of development and geography. We must identify and work on specifically if we want to create a standard.

Gustavo Diaz
University of Panama
Does the Draft Chart accurately represent the current process of a one-year cycle of the IGF? Why? Why not?:
Yes I think the draft is accurate, since virtual work makes it easier to fulfill deadlines.
1. INPUTS:
a. Are inputs used effectively to ensure that the work of the previous cycle is either continued or concluded?:
Sometimes inputs are not used effectively, since some information doesn´t reach the people that are responsible for the conclusion of tasks.
b. Have you seen your suggestions as part of the input process reflected in the IGF annual meeting?: I haven´t made any suggestions yet, so I can´t answer this question.
c. Are there any other inputs aside from those listed on the Draft Chart that you think should be considered?:
I think that other good source for inputs are releases from Civil Society, from civil rights advocates and professional guilds.
2. MAG MEETING NO. 1:
a. Are there other agenda items the MAG should consider, or goals to achieve, during Meeting No. 1?:
I think that the agenda of Meeting No. 1 is quite complete, since information from CFI is still pending.
b. Are the criteria and procedures clear for choosing BPF topics and other intersessional work streams? If not, what are recommendations for improvement?:
I think we should have two types of BPF topics: short term BPF for regular topics, and long term BPF for topics that take more than a year to see results, such as legistlation issues. In that way we wouldn´t need to renew most BPF's.
c. Should the Call for Issues take place before or after Meeting No. 1?:
The Call for Issues should take place before Meeting No. 1; giving more time to stakeholders to make proper consultations.
3. VIRTUAL WORK:
a. What improvements can be made to the process and selection criteria for workshop, open forum, and village booth proposals?:
I think there should be some briefing before these events take place, since some participants are not clear of what exactlye an IGF is. This briefing should be of course online, using social media to reach people effectively.
4. MAG MEETING NO. 2:
a. Is the process of contributing to the IGF agenda clear and accessible? Why? Why not?:
I think it is very accesible, since there are several options suited to any type of participant.
b. Is the process of featuring various types of sessions on the IGF agenda clear, transparent, and predictable? Why? Why not?:
I think the process is excellent. It has properly taken in considerations the feedback from previous year´s meetings.
5. IGF EVENT ANNUAL MEETING:
a. Is the process for selection of main session topics and organization of sessions sufficiently clear and transparent?:
The process is clear and transparent. It´s the result of several forums and all parts have had the opportunity to submit their opinions.
b. Is the current IGF programme setting process well equipped to discuss new and emerging issues?: I think it is, since it´s dynamic and can be easily adapted for new topics.
6. OUTPUTS:
a. Are these the right existing IGF outputs? Can you give any examples from your community? Can you identify others?:
In our country, transcripts, videos and summaries are regular outputs. In some cases, since our legislation is quite basic when it comes to Internet, there can be some Bill proposals to our national assembly.
b. Do you and/or your community use these outputs? If so, how? If not, why not?:
Information from summaries and transcripts define our "roadmap" for future events. For example, we have a strong discussion in Panama about fake news and civil rights in internet, since we have presidential elections next year, and these ideas came from last year´s igf.
c. Do you think existing IGF outputs are widely known or accessible enough? What can be improved?:
No, and it is an important issue. The use of social media can help to reach more people, specially youngsters who are digital natives, but unaware of Internet Governance.
d. Do you think there is a need for further/other outputs?:
As I mentioned before, social media can be an easy and unexpensive way to create more outputs. They can be used more efficiently.
e. How can the current IGF cycle best build on outputs of past years through a more systematic and inclusive process?:
The IGF cycle can be more inclusive through involvment of new stakeholders. Internet affects everyone, and some groups that don´t feel identified with IGF´s objectives should also be considered. These groups can include Medical Community, law enforcement, and others.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta
Disease Management Association of India
Does the Draft Chart accurately represent the current process of a one-year cycle of the IGF? Why? Why not?: Yes
1. INPUTS:
a. Are inputs used effectively to ensure that the work of the previous cycle is either continued or concluded?:
Can there be an IGF app ( mobile app) which sends out reminders to the interested participants about the deadlines for important submissions ?
b. Have you seen your suggestions as part of the input process reflected in the IGF annual meeting?: Not sure
c. Are there any other inputs aside from those listed on the Draft Chart that you think should be considered?:
During the IGF closing ceremony ( stalk taking session ) , i had suggested that IGF 2019 must come out with a detailed roadmap for the number of jobs it will create in each sector . I think this is crucial for the IGF. I am happy to take lead in working on this report as a full time associate . If we are able to come out with this report , IGF will be at the forefront of digital revolution
2. MAG MEETING NO. 1:
a. Are there other agenda items the MAG should consider, or goals to achieve, during Meeting No. 1?: I think my suggestion above should be sufficient
b. Are the criteria and procedures clear for choosing BPF topics and other intersessional work streams? If not, what are recommendations for improvement?:
Do a survey amongst your participants to list out the priorities for the next year and what they would like to learn or address at the IGF 2019
c. Should the Call for Issues take place before or after Meeting No. 1?: Yes
3. VIRTUAL WORK:
a. What improvements can be made to the process and selection criteria for workshop, open forum, and village booth proposals?:
Truly as a digital forum , please move to seeking feedback via survey. A mobile app for IGF is highly recommended
4. MAG MEETING NO. 2:
a. Is the process of contributing to the IGF agenda clear and accessible? Why? Why not?: no . Unless i visited your website , it was totally disconnected
b. Is the process of featuring various types of sessions on the IGF agenda clear, transparent, and predictable? Why? Why not?: Kind of , yes !
5. IGF EVENT ANNUAL MEETING:
a. Is the process for selection of main session topics and organization of sessions sufficiently clear and transparent?: not to me
b. Is the current IGF programme setting process well equipped to discuss new and emerging issues?: not really as i could see from the 3 day sessions
6. OUTPUTS:
a. Are these the right existing IGF outputs? Can you give any examples from your community? Can you identify others?:
No.

We need to focus from three standpoints

1. Sectors Digitisation will impact
2. Populations Digitisation will impact
3. Countries Digitisation will impact

and how are we preparing ourselves
b. Do you and/or your community use these outputs? If so, how? If not, why not?: Yes. I wish to set up the IGF in India and take this agenda forward
c. Do you think existing IGF outputs are widely known or accessible enough? What can be improved?:
no .

Make sure that your local associations are active to spread the word
d. Do you think there is a need for further/other outputs?:
During the IGF closing ceremony ( stalk taking session ) , i had suggested that IGF 2019 must come out with a detailed roadmap for the number of jobs it will create in each sector . I think this is crucial for the IGF. I am happy to take lead in working on this report as a full time associate . If we are able to come out with this report , IGF will be at the forefront of digital revolution

i am willing to take the lead for this report
e. How can the current IGF cycle best build on outputs of past years through a more systematic and inclusive process?: Create a digital repository topic wise / sectoral / country wise

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411