Thursday, September 29th, 2016
Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0
Welcome to the IGF’s Review Platform
October 18, 2016 at 9:08 am
We should notice how many nations and regions have been inspired by the formation of the IGF back ten years ago and how fast this concept of open multistakeholder discussion has spread over the world. Many NRI’s have aligned their processes in order submit their results to the annual global IGF. However the process to integrate national and regional outcomes into the global forum could be improved. There are multiple opportunities, like regional open forums, one joint NRI session, inter regional meetings, best practise exchanges.
It would help structuring the programme if we introduce a geographical component and provide space for all (5) regions equally to present their outcomes. Both should be possible; the opportunity for stakeholders of the respective region to meet and discuss whatever is on top of the agenda (in reach) and to present regional hot topics to all participants of the IGF (outreach).
I see the following benefits of such an approach:
IGF participants could be informed mutually about the issues relevant for each region.
Informed participants would have a better understanding for regional differentiated arguments during each of the following IGF sessions. (I.e. why are participants from region abc arguing in this direction whilst region xyz has another focus?) This would support the multistakeholder discussion and the understanding for each other.
Such an effort would require enhanced communication (or coordination) among national and regional initiatives from the same region, which is a multistakeholder process in itself.
It offers an additional opportunity for stakeholder from one region to meet.
In this year’s programme we see some regions / nations got a slot in the programme, whilst others have been rejected. What was the rationale behind such decision? It gives the impression the selection process was arbitrary.
See in context
October 14, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Fully support to avoid reinventing the process every year. I can speak from the EuroDIG perspective only: A clear process description (in words and in info graphic) which is more or less the same every year and published on the website will help the community to navigate. This process can be adjusted and improved where needed year by year, but the core should remain the same. Having such a stabile (not inflexible) process will also allow easier on boarding of new MAG members.
October 14, 2016 at 2:34 pm
Thank you for this opportunity of providing input and for extending the public consultation deadline.
October 14, 2016 at 2:26 pm
I think there are not many examples to look at, if any at all. The selection process for a multistakeholder organisation (conference) must be different from any other conferences, where a programme committee is in charge of. The aim of the IGF should be to decrease the number of session drastically. Too many sessions are overlapping and reiterating. This leads to a rather fragmented approach instead of a multistakeholder discussion, because everyone is so busy with preparing its own sessions. Some speakers are heading from one session to another just giving their (repeatedly) statements, and not being able to contribute to one session in full. Too many of the same people (still too many MAG members) are involved in multiple sessions this gives a bad taste.
October 14, 2016 at 2:20 pm
It is frustrating for anyone (newcomer or experienced contributor) to be rejected. Although there are guidelines in place and templates for submissions provided acceptance or rejection is based somehow on a subjective POV and always questionable. Therefore we developed a process at EuroDIG (see comment paragraph 33), which is open to anyone willing to contribute. We don’t want so say “no” to anyone, who put an effort in getting involved; instead we would like to offer ways of including as many contributors as possible. Our aim is to mix communities and try to facilitate real multistakeholder debates.
October 14, 2016 at 1:47 pm
For clarification: The EuroDIG call for issues does pre-define „categories“.
We are asking for issues of high interest to many stakeholders across Europe. In order to structure the proposals more easily, we are suggesting a few categories that can attribute to submissions. If a suggestion does not fit into one of the categories, a new one can be proposed.
The difference to the IGF is that we are not declining or accepting session proposals, but aim to build a programme including almost all submissions. Therefore we connect submitters which proposed a similar topic and encourage them to organise a session together. This is not always easy and needs a lot of facilitation and coordination work from the secretariat, as well as collaboration tools (wiki) and briefings. The process has become more stabile and clearer over the years and with the inclusion of subject matter experts we now avoid merging topics which do not really belong together.
October 14, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Although some of the participants where NRI coordinators; I find there was not sufficient attention given to include this group. Each national and regional IG initiative is per se contributing to strengthen the global IGF, furthermore NRI coordinators have a profound knowledge how to build up IG debates in all parts of the world. Listening to them would be valuable in both terms, (a) how to improve the IGF planning process and (b) understanding regional differences and specifics.
October 5, 2016 at 5:41 am
IGF should focus on arranging capacity building programmes in collaboration with friends and partners of the internet to develop capacity around important public policy issues surrounding the internet. Setting up summer schools would be a great idea to bring in experts from the west to the global south.
October 5, 2016 at 5:28 am
IGF should think and find a way of engaging the young internet users from developing countries of the world to hear about their perception of internet.
October 5, 2016 at 5:27 am
Connecting the next billion seems to be a corporate agenda of global corporations which will benefit greatly in the form of financial gains, more surveillance and flow of information. At the IGF we should firstly focus on protecting the rights of users on important issues such as freedom of expression, speech and protection of 5eyes of surveillance. Strategic relationship and data transfers between the NSA and powerful global internet entities should be discussed before connecting the next billion and putting them under their surveillance.
Website content © Review Platform 2016. All rights reserved.