|

Comments by Commenter

  • Adam Bacchus

    • In terms of collaboration and cooperation between those with the knowledge and skill sets necessary to improve the security of the Internet, implementation of vulnerability coordination and bug bounty programs seems like a key function which (thus far) hasn’t been explicitly called out in this text. Any entity which is responsible for protecting data should have a process in place by which they can acknowledge and fix identified vulnerabilities in their infrastructure as reported by external entities. This allows organizations to scale their efforts towards identifying vulnerabilities in externally-facing properties, as well as provides invaluable data on where their existing security processes have failed and need improvement.

  • Akinloye Triumph Okinbaloye

  • Analía Aspis - Richard Hill

    • Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      ES-AR
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      Oct 31, 2016
       
      Dear IGF Secretariat,
       
      We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation on the IGF retreat  retreat on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Co­ordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non­-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. These comments are made to p. 37, 39 and 40 of the Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the text in all paragraphs.

       
      In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on improving the nomination process and make­up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, we take this opportunity to bring attention  to the prior steps related to MAG nominations:

      Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      ES-AR
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      line-height:115%;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:11.0pt;
      font-family:”Arial”,sans-serif;
      color:black;}

       
       
      1.    In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The result of this meeting, is a public document[1] open to public consultation until 31October 2016. With regard to MAG, the paragraphs 37 to 49 address different points related to its work, and its selection process. Relevant information is copied below:

      ¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair
       
      ¶ 39
      There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.
       
      ¶ 40
      A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for.
       
       
      2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 IGF preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the meeting as Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF Secretariat.
       
      The Summary Report: IGF Virtual Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG9 Meeting VIII – 18 October 2016, states on p. 8):
       
      “Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would get started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was in place as early as possible. There was also a short discussion about whether or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not.
      The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and quite nuanced point.
      Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process was that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG, specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their stakeholder group and geographical region, etc.
      Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection process. The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 14:00 UTC.[2]
       
      3. The recording of this session was made public[3]. Even though sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it was not always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not recorded, from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection process was raised by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item.  Specifically he pointed out that in the past, the names of the nominees for consideration of the MAG have not been public and he addressed the question to the MAG if it should be like this (non public) for the next MAG renewal. Until minute 1.06.23 no decision was made and a request for written updates on this discussion sent to the list was made so as to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of transparency (minute 52.06)
       
      After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along with the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how transparent the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society stakeholders, will be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to the public consultation on the IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the specific points related to MAG renewal. We stress the importance of transparency in civil society selection as MAG stakeholders and , in this sense, we  take this opportunity to reiterate our availability to and willingness contribute and collaborate in the process of selection of MAG members.
       
      The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. Whether this should be at the close of applications, or at the close of assessments, needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed procedures.
       
      Stakeholder procedures for making selections should also be publicly available(CSCG’s current procedures can be found at http://www.internetgov-­cs.org/procedures)
       
      We recommend that in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all
      candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. This requirement should also be
      included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.
       
      These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other
      organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co­operation , as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative results.
       
      Analía Aspis – Richard Hill
      Chairs, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group
       

      [1] http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-suggestions/

      [2]http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20161025/0491282a/attachment-0001.pdf

      [3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-d-EIIQWsUiemNhVGwxbFRBeGc/view

    • Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      ES-AR
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      line-height:115%;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:11.0pt;
      font-family:”Arial”,sans-serif;
      color:black;}

      Oct 31, 2016
       
      Dear IGF Secretariat,
       
      We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation on the IGF retreat  retreat on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Co­ordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non­-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. These comments are made to p. 37, 39 and 40 of the Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the text in all paragraphs.
       
      In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on improving the nomination process and make­up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, we take this opportunity to bring attention  to the prior steps related to MAG nominations:
       
      1.    In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The result of this meeting, is a public document[1] open to public consultation until 31October 2016. With regard to MAG, the paragraphs 37 to 49 address different points related to its work, and its selection process. Relevant information is copied below:

      ¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair
       
      ¶ 39
      There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.
       
      ¶ 40
      A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for.
       
       
      2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 IGF preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the meeting as Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF Secretariat.
       
      The Summary Report: IGF Virtual Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG9 Meeting VIII – 18 October 2016, states on p. 8):
       
      “Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would get started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was in place as early as possible. There was also a short discussion about whether or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not.
      The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and quite nuanced point.
      Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process was that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG, specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their stakeholder group and geographical region, etc.
      Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection process. The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 14:00 UTC.[2]
       
      3. The recording of this session was made public[3]. Even though sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it was not always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not recorded, from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection process was raised by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item.  Specifically he pointed out that in the past, the names of the nominees for consideration of the MAG have not been public and he addressed the question to the MAG if it should be like this (non public) for the next MAG renewal. Until minute 1.06.23 no decision was made and a request for written updates on this discussion sent to the list was made so as to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of transparency (minute 52.06)
       
      After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along with the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how transparent the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society stakeholders, will be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to the public consultation on the IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the specific points related to MAG renewal. We stress the importance of transparency in civil society selection as MAG stakeholders and , in this sense, we  take this opportunity to reiterate our availability to and willingness contribute and collaborate in the process of selection of MAG members.
       
      The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. Whether this should be at the close of applications, or at the close of assessments, needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed procedures.
       
      Stakeholder procedures for making selections should also be publicly available(CSCG’s current procedures can be found at http://www.internetgov-­cs.org/procedures)
       
      We recommend that in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all
      candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. This requirement should also be
      included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.
       
      These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other
      organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co­operation , as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative results.
       
      Analía Aspis – Richard Hill
      Chairs, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group
       

      [1] http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-suggestions/

      [2]http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20161025/0491282a/attachment-0001.pdf

      [3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-d-EIIQWsUiemNhVGwxbFRBeGc/view

    • Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      ES-AR
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      line-height:115%;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:11.0pt;
      font-family:”Arial”,sans-serif;
      color:black;}

      Oct 31, 2016
       
      Dear IGF Secretariat,
       
      We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation on the IGF retreat  retreat on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Co­ordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non­-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. These comments are made to p. 37, 39 and 40 of the Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the text in all paragraphs.
       
      In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on improving the nomination process and make­up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, we take this opportunity to bring attention  to the prior steps related to MAG nominations:
       
      1.    In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The result of this meeting, is a public document[1] open to public consultation until 31October 2016. With regard to MAG, the paragraphs 37 to 49 address different points related to its work, and its selection process. Relevant information is copied below:

      ¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair
       
      ¶ 39
      There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.
       
      ¶ 40
      A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for.
       
       
      2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 IGF preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the meeting as Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF Secretariat.
       
      The Summary Report: IGF Virtual Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG9 Meeting VIII – 18 October 2016, states on p. 8):
       
      “Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would get started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was in place as early as possible. There was also a short discussion about whether or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not.
      The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and quite nuanced point.
      Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process was that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG, specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their stakeholder group and geographical region, etc.
      Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection process. The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 14:00 UTC.[2]
       
      3. The recording of this session was made public[3]. Even though sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it was not always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not recorded, from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection process was raised by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item.  Specifically he pointed out that in the past, the names of the nominees for consideration of the MAG have not been public and he addressed the question to the MAG if it should be like this (non public) for the next MAG renewal. Until minute 1.06.23 no decision was made and a request for written updates on this discussion sent to the list was made so as to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of transparency (minute 52.06)
       
      After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along with the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how transparent the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society stakeholders, will be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to the public consultation on the IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the specific points related to MAG renewal. We stress the importance of transparency in civil society selection as MAG stakeholders and , in this sense, we  take this opportunity to reiterate our availability to and willingness contribute and collaborate in the process of selection of MAG members.
       
      The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. Whether this should be at the close of applications, or at the close of assessments, needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed procedures.
       
      Stakeholder procedures for making selections should also be publicly available(CSCG’s current procedures can be found at http://www.internetgov-­cs.org/procedures)
       
      We recommend that in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all
      candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. This requirement should also be
      included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.
       
      These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other
      organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co­operation , as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative results.
       
      Analía Aspis – Richard Hill
      Chairs, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group
       

      [1] http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-suggestions/

      [2]http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20161025/0491282a/attachment-0001.pdf

      [3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-d-EIIQWsUiemNhVGwxbFRBeGc/view

  • Anna Orlova

    • Comment on PART E: Appendices on November 16th, 2016

      In ¶ 54 of the part “2016 IGF Best Practice Forums(BPFs): Draft Outputs as of 2 November” it says: Leave a comment on paragraph 540The aims of the survey (see Appendix 3 for the survey questions) …

      Is this the section with the questions for the (online) survey? If it is, it’s worth clarifying it here(in para 33) to make it explicit. 

    • Comment on PART A: Findings on November 25th, 2016

      I think it is important to include race or racial and ethnic original to the second sentence of this paragraph as a factor that influences women’s ability to gain access, especially in the Global South.

    • Comment on PART A: Findings on November 25th, 2016

      For example, gender literacy gaps – including digital literacy – results in uneven capacity amongst women to use the Internet for their needs and capacities. – Here capacity used twice, seems one of them should be replaced with some other word. 

    • Comment on PART B: Mandate and Methodology on November 16th, 2016

      It is not clear what does ‘Part 1 of this document’ refer to. In the table of contents there are Parts A, B, C etc. throughout the document, but neither section of the document is marked as Part 1 in the TOC. Does Part 1 refer to the IGF Community Consultation? I think it makes sense to make clarify it here, because the document is not very intuitive to navigate, especially for newcomers or people outside of the IGF community.

    • Comment on PART B: Mandate and Methodology on November 16th, 2016

      Again, there are a few Parts A in this document, for those who want to go directly to that section this is misleading. Please clarify which section of the document this Part A refers to. Thank you.

    • Comment on PART B: Mandate and Methodology on November 16th, 2016

      How will it be shared exactly and will this infographic be available on the IGF webiste? Thank you.

  • Arzak Khan

    • The final participants list though very balanced and diverse across a number of considerations are the same people we have been seeing at the IGF since its inception. Given the revolutionary changes the internet is facing itself and bringing to society it would have been worthwhile to include faces that bring new thought processes and perspectives to the IGF. Reaching out to them is important and critical for the development of internet.

    • Internet impact on the evolution is taking place mostly in developing countries where penetration is set to increase in the coming years. It is generally felt that IGF contribution in creating multi stakeholder participation from developing countries is very small and need to be increased to provide opportunity for people working for the development and growth of the internet in developing countries shape policies with multi stakeholder approaches.

    • A study should be conducted on the contributions of IGF from the perspective and benefits of developing countries and shared here.

    • Decision making on a wide range of public policies related to the Internet in developing countries is still being conducted in isolation. A recent example was the passing of Cybercrime bill in Pakistan.

    •  
      The community of experts on both technical and public policy issues on the internet is extremely limited. Instead of giving exposure to the same group of people again and again new members from civil society, government and academia must be included in international and regional IGFs.

    • The representation of stakeholders at the IGF is thoroughly dissatisfying although often praised by insiders as being a useful discussion forum where public and private stakeholders can broaden their knowledge of Internet policy issues and their appreciation of other points of view, the tangible results of this knowledge exchange have been thin on the ground and back in the countries of origin.

    • IGF risks of becoming a forum that is only for founders or workers of new world order social organizations coming from urban professional elitist’s backgrounds. The weak links back in home countries and lack of sharing of knowledge gained from the IGF is resulting in shaping internet policy issues by their own perceptions of needs and problems instead from a community or a national/regional perspective. If the IGF aims are to become more than urban based elitist group speaking or working on behalf of members or beneficiaries than a more internally democratic and participatory approach is called for which involves consciously breaking with the approaches, attitudes and behaviors associated with Soviet top-down styles of identifying stakeholders.

    • 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.

    •  
      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.

    •  
      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.

  • Association for Progressive Communications

  • Batsirai Tambo

    • In order to increase visibility of the outputs of the IGF, I think it is important to use social media at a very serious level. The better combination of tools for this would be a much better, graphic-rich, more colourful website to keep users who engage with the web regularly(i.e younger people), interested in the content of the IGF. It is important to know that the website needs to reveal to the user that what the IGF is doing something good for the world and relevant in the lives of anyone who may visit the website. The website can then add on this by having a way to give back to the user, e.g the IGF can run a ‘marketing campaign’ with an associated tagline that can be spread with the help of of the users who engage with the activities of IGF. For example , a short campaign to spread the word through Twitter, those who tweet out the tagline get a special award or some form of recognition by the IGF by helping to ‘connect the next billion’ because it a worthy cause, or get to invite a few users who spread IGF’s message best to engage with the previously disconnected people on the other side of the world who now have internet access after work that was done through partnerships with the IGF. For a person already in the connected world to hear and get a perspective from someone who got online for the first time and how it changed their life can be a great experience (in my view at least). Finally, YouTube is a great way to let the world know that the IGF is doing is important. It can be beneficial before big important meetings to run/upload pre-meeting ‘teaser videos’ so that these can at least generate interest from the public. This can get more people to go to the IGF and investigate what the issues are that were told in the teaser video. Just some thoughts, thank you.

  • Bill Graham

    • The IGF/MAG’s ability to focus early IGFs on themes established by the WSIS helped to focus discussion and provide continuity. Eventually however, over-reliance on those themes led to repetitive discussions and reliance on an insiders’ group of speakers. This is a good suggestion, but there needs to be continual renewal of the themes, including (as suggested later in this report) by harvesting topics that prove either fruitful or contentious in regional and national IGFs, and using mechanisms that are working well in EURODIG, for example.

    • For these suggestions to be at all realistic, resources will be required to fund many MAG members’ participation, particularly those not from the governmental stakeholder group.

    • As a general rule, it would be unwise to impose criteria on the stakeholder groups, in my opinion. Each group has different ways of working and different priorities. That said, transparency and awareness would be greatly improved if the UN Secretary-General were to be clear on her/his requirements for geographic, gender, age and other elements of diversity. Knowing these in advance would make the stakeholders’ work easier and more effective.

    • There are many examples individuals who have benefited from the capacity-building impact of the IGF to date, and more specifically from the capacity-building programs offered by some of the stakeholder groups. This can be seen in their emergence as active participants and often leaders in their communities’ organizations and at the national and international level. It would be useful to gather a report (self generated?) to show others this positive impact, ideally as a means of encouraging more capacity building efforts connected with the IGF.

    • This is already happening to some degree, but institutionalizing a day devoted to capacity building would be useful.

    • Segregating government participants would work against the multistakeholder basis of the IGF. Instead, government participants should be encouraged to take advantage of broadly based capacity building efforts by any stakeholder. Governments themselves should take advantage of the IGF and related activities as a tool both for internal capacity building and in succession planning for their employees, but also for their citizens.

    • I wholeheartedly support Mr. Klensin’s comment regarding the need to keep the IGF focused on “actual governance issues that are Internet-specific.” Mandate creep has long been a threat to the IGF, and by openly committing to this principle would help to keep it on track, and thus to demonstrate its purpose and usefulness.

    • The definition of success must include the success of bringing new people and new expertise into the practice of Internet governance.

    • Outputs should not be equated with “documents.” The outputs of skill and participation in Internet-related governance activities by all stakeholder groups may well be the most effective and demonstrable.

  • carlos ruiz amezcua

  • Carlos Vera

    • For Governments: Through the UN itself and through regional groups. In Latin America there are several related regional political/economical groups integrated by government representatives. i.e. CELAC The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, MERCOSUR, Andean COmmunity, etc.

      Governments are already engaged inside this groups and several initiatives with an strong leadership from regional leaders. So if we put IGF in their political/social/economical agenda, can be succesfull engaging governments with those issues.

    • Most of the times, even if you are right. have the right approach and resons, still need political support.

      We see 2 ways here:

      1. Work to get political support

      2. Work to not need political support when goverments are against some technical or expert positions for political considerations. What this mean is to allow a direct access from experts as an stakeholder and making clear the line between a technical issue (a fact) and a political issue (a conditioning)

    • NRIs are the right approach to join multiple stakeholders in a common and sustainable effort to work together.

      What we need here:

      1. Reliable funds sources for a continuos and independent (non influenced) agenda for NRIs

      2. A mix with volunteers and staff for NRIs. Most of volunteers have not enough time to attend meetings, work on minutes, organize events, travel, etc., so in some way the results depend on the time they can donate for free to NRIs. So it’s necessary to have hired people to work in the day to day. Of course it mean again reliable source funding.

    • We should work on metrics about WHY people is not intereested or engaged with IGF. Some possible answer has to do with:

      1. Lack of english. This is a main problem. We must work on an effective, reliable, always available and free translation system. This is a very high-entry barrier for newcomers and for the whole community in general.

      2. Lack of practical expertise because most volunteers have only theorical access to discussions. Not enough geographical fellows and other ways to participate is the normal condition.

      3. Lack of Local work on IGF and related issues including content, on other languages than english.

    • Capacity Building programs in other languages than english. Not only translation is needed but customize the programs and contents. This is a must for regions like Latinoamerica where we have initiatives but always in the same level (beginners) and the world is running fast.

    • IGF for Academic is also a must. An structured, common and regional effort to make IGF in the academic curriculo of universities. For this we need governments participation in order to make IGF academic issues, a recognized, international and standarized content in the universitary level.

    • We should have an IGF secretariat at every country, with a dedicated and permanent, full time staff.

      Sustained funding has to be independent, from non invasive sources. UN and related international initiatives (like latinamerican and caribean ones) are a good starting point if they can work on and non political base with local IGF and NRIs.

    • Through local offices for support local initiatives and make the bridge with local initiatives, organizations an stakeholders.

      Local offices can be small and basic. 2-3 persons. This is the best way to support local volunteers.

    • Independent NRIs is a must, but working very closed and with international practices. Independent means:

      Own administration
      Own agenda
      Own process
      Same or localized model, toolkits, reports, and methodology in order to be able to sistematize information and offer quality reports and materiales for the entire, global IGF process

    • The option to choose between one or another model (for profit or non for profit) depends also of the local legislation for the IXP. In any model what is important is to acomplish the goals for members and final users: expanded Internet access, mutual cooperation and engagement between members, neutrality of the IXP, and benefits for users with cheaper Internet access cost and best performance.

       

    • The for profit model like the one in IXP Ecuador, one of the IXP that exist in this country, run like a business, for operational purposes but has not a for profit goal. For the purposes of the members of IXP Ecuador, being a company works better for decisions more executive, and for bussines issues like hiring people, import goods for operation and for making investment decisions under a cooperation basis with members and providers.

      So in this case the “for profit”model is for administrative purposes and the company has a Consultive Council with representatives from all members to made fair and neutral decisions for members and also to make it in the benefit of Internet users all around the country.

    • This is absolutly true like we have in IXP Ecuador.

    • Usually, most of the members of an IXP, have a lack of resources (this is normally true in developing countries where big Internet players have the big bussines) and it’s a complex situation to dedicate resources for a voluntaring model, pay high fees for acces to the IXP, or finance the conection to the IXP’s phisycal location.

      IXP Ecuador, develops a business model  where this expenses are paid over a long time period, allowing their members to effectivelly be partners on a peer to peer basis, and participate and to grow together on a long term project.

    • In the bussines model of IXP Ecuador for example, we look for partners and not for customers. Our members are part of the consultive board and we have a fastest growing because we finance the connection to the IXP on a long term partnership agreement with all the participants, ensuring in that way a really democratic access model for all small actors that really need the benefits of  an IXP.

    • When you run under a for profit model, you understand very well that partners and users always have options.

       

      Partners will remain with us, if and only if, our bussines model is competitive for them. Being an enterprise does not mean having the monopoly of IXP so any group of partners can work with any competitor, if they have better business for them and their customers (internet users)

    • When an IXP finally makes a decision on the technical model, it’s because is able to ensure prices and cost of operation competitive. Do not forget that all the operational and administrative costs of the IXP in any model, are finally part of the invoice to users and that users, always have options to choose from in the market.

    • IXP Ecuador from an earthquak condition, towards a succesfull business model 

      In Ecuador, the april 16 de 2016, 16A, changes the lifes of the whole country. One of the most severes earthquak destroy families all around the ccountry and mainly in Manabi and Esmeraldas.

      Near 300 small ISPs in Ecuador were under critical economic condition because of the national economic situation that was critical before the eartquake and very critical after this natural event. Dozens of ISPs reduce dramatically their business because of the economic situation and also for the competition of big internet players in country, with an agresive business model for users, using their economic position in detriment of small ISPs all around the country.

      Several previous efforts to organize between them were not sucessfull because the have not the funds for start an IXP and connect to it.

      near to hundred percent of small ISPs, do not have their own IPs or ASN, and work behind bigger provider like simple resellers of Internet plans.

      The cost to connect to the existing IXP was high and if they connect to it, this fact will left most of them out of business too.

      Finally, in short, they decide to create an IXP, under the for profit model, working under the umbrella of one business partner that finance the infrastructure, the conection and all the operational and administrative costs and provide them with acces to the IXP, with their own IPs and ASN and with a competitive and sustainale long term business model for everybody.

      In that way born IXP Ecuador, with the support of ISOC Ecuador, the ecuadorian chapter of Internet Society and Google.

      The project have 15+ IXP nodes all around the country, and have the first 3 nodes already being installed and working.

      The for profit model, was for administrative and operational purposes and all members are in the Consultive Council of the Company making better decisions for participants IXPs and for the Internet Users.

  • Charles Dan

    • Comment on PART D: Acronyms & Abbreviations on November 17th, 2016

      This is very good content you shared.Thank you so much that for you shared those things with us.I am wishing you to carry on with your achievement.All the best..Thanks for sharing. MP3 juice app

  • Claire Sibthorpe

    • Comment on PART A: Findings on December 5th, 2016

      The first sentence refers to 2010 research – worth mentioning the date of those findings to contextualize how they have changed over time. GSMA researched this issue again 5 years later and the updated findings on this topic are in the  2015 report mentioned.

  • Dorothy Kudzai

    • For developing countries like Zimbabwe, yes there are trying to embrace these multistakeholder processes but the question that normally arises is who leads them. As much as there seems to be an all encompassing composition, once the idea is “coined” by the state, the multistakeholder composition falls away. The state will usually employ their own stakeholders that stand in as academics or technocracts and it distorts the whole system.
      How then do we ensure governments do not have the upper hand in the process?

    • i will give an example of the recently established IGF in Zimbabwe, multistakeholders are there in theory, stakeholders are not equally represented and sice its formation nothing else has been done to capacitate the citizens on internet governance issues. When it comes to policing issues the ZIGF is silent yet its supposed to be a voice of the voiceless. As we reviewed the Computer cyber crime bill, the multistakeholder unison disappeared, the civil society had its own view and now trying to engage the policy makers to accept their views before the bill becomes a law. Is it supposed to be that way or all stakeholders should reach a consensus even at the policy drafting stage?

       

  • Izumi Okutani

  • Jaime Olmos

  • Jeremy Malcolm

    • Not just by the MAG. DCs’ work needs to be reviewed by the IGF community at large, and that process of review needs to be supported by the Secretariat and funded. This was piloted (without funding) during the 2015 IGF when DC outputs were left open for community review, which could lead to outputs with a strong and broad consensus being validated as outputs of the IGF at large.

  • John C KLENSIN

    • RFC5992
      I have reviewed the summary web page from the perspective of a participant in the retreat.  It appears to me to be a good summary.

      There is one topic that was mentioned during the retreat which I would like to emphasize future.

      It is clear to almost everyone that the Internet and activities that it enables have had a huge impact on many activities of contemporary life around the world.  The IGF and associated activities have provided a discussion forum about many of those activities.  At the same time, thjere is no evidence for many of them activities requiring “governance” at all.  Others, despite the cross-border aspect of the Internet, can and should be dealt with as national matters.  Still others are Internet-induced variations on issues that are associated with existing institutions for discussion and problem-solving or existing international agreements.

      I see the IGF as being far more effective and useful during the next decade if it can be focused tightly on actual Internet Governance issues, topics where the Internet needs governance, where individual national solutions are inherently inadequate, and where other applicable institutions do not exist.  For the latter topics, I’m especially concerned that, if IGF continues to be actively involved, discussions will be carried out in ignorance of other work and, more important, will discourage progress in context in which real experience and knowledge are readily available.

      Recommendations (not just for IGF 2016 but as a gradual process going forward:

      (1) Focus IGF on actual governance issues that are Internet-specific.  Other topics should at least be identified as different and probably be candidates for spinning off into other venues.

      (2) In areas where other efforts, institutions, or policy frameworks already exist and predate the Internet, begin looking at how IGF, or IGF-associated mechanisms or entities, can do a better job of educating those involved in those efforts about issues created or changed by the Internet.  In most cases, those earlier forums should be the focus of discussion and decision-making and the impact of the Internet should not be an excuse for non-action, but discussions that do not consider Internet impact (and consider it with a good understanding of actual Internet reality, technical and administrative) are unlikely to add good results.

      Thanks to the UN staff and others involved for facilitating, and to the other participants for, a retreat that I found very useful and constructive and producing an excellent summary page.

      John Klensin

  • Keith Mitchell

  • Malcolm Hutty

    • Strictly speaking, not-for-profit means that you don’t distribute a profit (as a dividend, or equivalent payment). It doesn’t stop the IXP from making a surplus (indeed, making a surplus is usually highly advisable); but instead of distributing this surplus as profit, the intent is to invest it in the further development of the IXP, or to enable a reduction in prices.

  • Mallory Knodel

  • Markus Kummer

    • My comments refer to the mention of a Special Advisor to the Secretary-General in para 55. The report refers to him as “the political face” of the IGF and notes  “that having such a person attached to the Secretary-General had worked well for the first five years of the IGF (2006-2010), where the function allowed raising the profile of the IGF within and beyond the UN”. This is correct, but not the whole story. For the first five years Mr Nitin Desai assumed the function of Special Advisor to the Secretary-General. His role however was much more than just being the “political face”, as he chaired all the open consultations and MAG meetings and also gave advice to the Secretary-General on other Internet governance related issues, such as “enhanced cooperation”. The role of a Special Advisor should therefore also be discussed in connection with the MAG Chair (paras 44-48) as well as in connection with other Internet governance related issues that require high-level attention

      The Internet in 2016 has grown in economic and social importance since Mr Desai’s mandate elapsed six years ago. Re-appointing a Special Advisor on Internet governance would therefore be a logical return to normality.  The seniority of a Special Advisor in the UN hierarchy would benefit the IGF. An alternative solution could consist of appointing a separate MAG Chair who would report directly to the Special Advisor, should the latter not be in a position to devote that much time to chairing the MAG.

  • Michael Jensen

    • Comment on PART A: Access and the SDGs on November 14th, 2016

      One aspect that is missing from this list of priorities is the role of local communities in building their own access networks and related infrastructure.

      The need for awareness raising and information sharing on this important strategy has prompted the formation of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (the DC3), of which APC is a member. With support from FGV, ISOC, and the APC, the DC3 is holding a series of workshops before, during and after the IGF to discuss strategies going forward and to publish a declaration on Community Connectivity. A short statement of the vision for the DC3 is as follows:

      Community networks (CN) are structured to be open and neutral. Such networks rely on the active participation of local communities in the design, development, deployment and management of the shared infrastructure as a common resource, owned by the community and operated in a democratic fashion. CNs can be operationalised, wholly or partly, through local stakeholders, NGOs, private sector entities and/or public administrations and are characterised by collective ownership; social management; open design and open participation; free peering and transit with networks offering reciprocity; as well as the promotion of free software and open standards and technologies.

      The fact that almost 60% of the world’s population lives in rural areas or urban slums suggests that new approaches – alternative to the mainstream commercial model – must be adopted if the Internet is to reach everyone. Over the past decade, a variety of successful examples of CNs have emerged on all continents, exploiting many technical and governance configurations, as documented by the Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity.  Such examples have demonstrated that CNs may be a viable option to connect the unconnected while truly empowering local communities and building local technical capacity. Notably, the establishment of CNs has proven that local stakeholders, including public administrations, entrepreneurs and NGOs, may become protagonists of the development of Internet connectivity, building infrastructure from the first square mile and proposing innovative sustainability models. Furthermore, CNs foster the development of new services, applications and local content as well as job creation – as in the Guifi.net and DEF India cases -. Therefore, CNs should be considered as a credible option for connecting the unconnected. Public policies should be crafted in order to facilitate rather than hinder the establishment of CN, as suggested by the Declaration on Community Connectivity. CNs are an example of connectivity for local communities by local communities through the community and relevant stakeholders. For further details, see: http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3737/174

       

  • Michael Oghia

    • Comment on IGF NRIs Toolkit on December 20th, 2016

      I had submitted some substantive comments over email and hope they were incorporated. These include, what I see, is the need for:

      1. 
      Links to relevant resources:

      Previously submitted NRI documents from various regions that help illustrate and reinforce parts of the toolkit (and gives the reader an idea of what the required materials should look like);

      This includes NRI reports, which have been or will be included

      Other relevant documents and links from non-NRI-related resources (such as ISOC / ICANN documents about multistakeholder processes, etc.). 

      Including the Core principles is good, and also linking to the IGF Code of Conduct in case it isn’t. 
      Some resources I was thinking of regarding the MSM that could be good reference material were the following: 

      https://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-governance-why-multistakeholder-approach-works (ISOC)
      https://www.ourinternet.org/report (Global Commission on Internet Governance)
      http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/591571452529901419/WDR16-BP-Multistakeholder-Dutton.pdf (World Bank)
      https://icannwiki.com/Multistakeholder_Model (ICANN)
      http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Cooperatives/Multi-Stakeholder_Co-ops/Multi-Stakeholder_Governance_And_The_Internet_Governance_Forum.pdf (Jeremy Malcolm, ed.).

      Best practices and recommendations; and
      A list of organizations or stakeholders that might be good places to reach out to for support and/or funding. There is no mention of the IGFSA, for instance (at least there did not used to be). I’m not sure if this was already addressed previously, but it was something that stuck out to me.

      2. Suggestions for how meetings are supposed to operate (with remote moderation, breaks, how to structure a meeting, etc.). And include a checklist of to-do items before, during, and after the meeting that could be useful.

      The checklist can be generated from a crowdsourced Google Doc with this information added by NRI coordinators (especially regarding things they wish they had known before they hosted their first meeting). There might already be one in existence or even circulating.

       

      3. I still think the budget section needs significantly more work, in that it needs to be more detailed and have relevant links to existing NRI budget formats. I recommend including more information on IGFSA as well.

      Since there is no one, uniform practice here (nor should their be since NRIs are bottom-up initiatives completely relevant and adapted to the local context), what I mean by existing NRIs budget formats is a copy of an NRI budget, without non-disclosed or private information, that NRIs can base their budgets off. Basically, how is the money allocated/divided? What are they paying for? Just to give an idea. It doesn’t have to be 10 it can be 1 or 2, one say from a developed country IGF, the other from a developing country IGF, (just a suggestion).

      4. I also recommend including resources like a glossary of terms/acronyms, and a helpful resource list of links at the end of the document. This can include a list of all the current NRIs and links.

      The toolkit will include the list of NRIs and all contacts. What I suggestedm though (and especially for newcomers) is that we define all terms used the publication (acronyms, abbreviations, organization names, processes, initatives, etc.), then (and perhaps link to DiploFoundation’s Glossary of Acronyms: https://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/IG%20acronym%20glossary_2015.pdf)

      5. Include more mentions of and encourage participation in IGF intersessional work, such as the Best Practice Forums (BPFs), Dynamic Coalitions (DCs), and Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) (CENB). NRI contributions are incredibly critical to these initiatives, especially CENB.
       

    • Comment on IGF NRIs Toolkit on December 21st, 2016

      In addition to my comment above, this could be a useful resource to include as well:

      The road to a local IGF: Strategies and experiences, a collection of tools useful to kickstart an IGF – a template for a SWOT, ideas and strategy for a fundraising plan, a communication strategy, and a roadmap template:  http://igf.academy/IGF-Academy-road-to-IGF.pdf)

    • Comment on IGF NRIs Toolkit on December 21st, 2016

      And an addition to my second comment:

      The road to a local IGF: Country profiles, A condensed collection of the experiences fellows made (and are making) setting up a national IGF: http://igf.academy/IGF-Academy-profiles.pdf)

  • Michael R. Nelson

    • As I suspect you already know, the link to the “proceedings record” is wrong.  It should be http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2016-06-23-15-15-52/igf-retreat-proceedings  Instead, it currently links to the list of participants.

       

    • The IGF has certainly expanded its audience since the first three or four meetings when the focus really was on a narrow set of Internet governance issues and the attendees (and IGF members) were primarily “Internet insiders.”  Today, IGF examines a broader set of issues and spends more time on the communities impacted by Internet governance decisions rather than rehashing how those decisions are made (in other forums).

       

    • This may be the most important paragraph of the entire report.  Because the MAG members come from a wide range of backgrounds and because the proposal evaluation process rewards those proposals that are on topics that most or all of the MAG members are familiar with, it is very hard for proposals on brand new, emerging issues to make it onto the program.  IGF should strive to carve a niche for itself as a place where participants can learn how to anticipate new challenges in Internet policy and governance.  This may require some changes to the proposal solicitation and selection processes.

       

    • I find the use of the phrase “reinvigorate the IGF” is curious.  Was there agreement among the retreat participants that the IGF had stalled or grown stale?  If so, in what way?

       

    • One of the most important innovations that could be made to the selection process would be providing a platform (maybe on LinkedIn) where potential session organizers could indicate that they are thinking of submitting a proposal on a particular topic and solicit potential panelists.  Having served on the MAG, I have found it very frustrating to see four very similar proposals each of which were incomplete or less diverse than they would have been if the organizers had worked together on one or two strong proposals.  This would work much better than requiring “arranged marriages” of similar proposals after the MAG selection is done.

       

    • There is clearly a tension between “setting a theme” and allowing the IGF community to propose panels on the topics that are most timely and important.  In the past, the conference themes and the subthemes have been broad enough to accommodate a very wide range of discussions.  I would hate to see the IGF theme being used to block the kind of discussions we have had at past IGF meetings.

    • We need to be VERY careful not to impose a rigid, quantitative ranking system in which each proposal is given a score and that alone determines whether it ends up on the program.  If there are five, nearly-identical panels that all get high, nearly-identical scores, it would not make sense to accept them all–and exclude new topics and new participants that might now have scored as well.  The MAG must have the ability to “promote” proposals that may not have scored as well as redundant panels on well-worn topics.

    • I would be interested in knowing how an “apprenticeship programme” would work.  I think the NRIs and the inter-sessional work already provide valuable ways for people to get involved in the IGF community and to demonstrate the kinds of skills that might be helpful on the MAG.  Despite that, in the past, some new MAG members are often chosen who have not been deeply engaged in past IGF activities.  This is particularly true of representatives of IGOs.

       

    • This is essential.  It is hard to recruit and retain a great team of staff, if the funding and leadership of the IGF is not stable.  We have been very lucky so far to have a dedicated and talented group of people supporting the IGF.  But the kind of delay caused by the one-year delay in renewing the IGF mandate was VERY troubling.

    • This seems overly bureaucratic and would inhibit the day-to-day functioning of the IGF Secretariat.  The chair should be someone who know how to work with the full range of stakeholders involved in the IGF.   There is no way that two or three or four people can represent all the different interests of the IGF community–that’s what the members of the MAG do.

    • This is an excellent suggestion.

    • The IGF could do much more to connect people with similar interests while they are at IGF meetings.  Encouraging everyone to use the Web site to indicate their interest in specific sessions would be one way of helping people meet people they should know.

    • Does “participation” mean attending the IGF and the NRIs and learning or does it mean serving on the MAG and proposing panels?

    • These are all valuable suggestions.  It would be particularly useful to have the best and most interesting panels (and 3- to 7-minutes snippets of panels) highlighted on the IGF web site.  The TED.com site may be a model.  They do a great job of showcasing the most popular and most though-provoking videos.  And they have a mailing list and send out an e-mail every week or so pointing their audience to particularly cool talks.

    • There is a clear need to engage more representatives of governments and of private companies, ideally at a higher level.  One reason fewer private sector representatives are coming to the IGF is because they have fewer of their counterparts to talk with (and fewer senior government officials to interact with).  This could lead to a downward spiral.  The result would be that the only corporate and government people coming to IGF are people who are there to “prevent something bad from happening” rather than being there to contribute to fruitful and constructive discussions.

  • Mike Blanche (personal)

  • Nathalia Foditsch

    • Comment on PART A: Findings on November 22nd, 2016

      I suggest changing the expression ” meaningful”. It seems that the goal here is to show that speed and bandwidth quality are crucial to enable the benefits the documents talks about. The word “meaningful”, however, might lead to different interpretations – e.g. content related interpretations.

    • Comment on PART A: Findings on November 22nd, 2016

      I understand that the expression “soft components” was taken from the Broadband Commission Report. I believe, however, it does not reflect what this paragraph wants to convey , which is the need for policies that also look at the issue from the perspective of the demand and use of broadband.

    • Comment on PART A: Findings on November 22nd, 2016

      I suggest adding a sentence/paragraph saying that gender goals are rarely part of National Broadband Plans (I state this based on research I have undertaken)

  • Renata Aquino Ribeiro

    • Comment on 2016 IGF BPF Gender and Access on November 19th, 2016

      This document also contains references to regional and global links discussions built by participation in NRIs – National and Regional IGFs. Namely, Brazil IGF (Fórum Brasileiro), LACIGF, APrIGF.

    • Comment on PART B: Mandate and Methodology on November 19th, 2016

      “sub-task” could be better defined as “continued task” since work on VAW is ever-changing and the BPF augmentation of 2015 brings yet another snapshots on such an increasingly important topic

    • Comment on PART B: Mandate and Methodology on November 19th, 2016

      academic, technical and research institutions – suggestion to add the importance of the technical community

    • Comment on PART B: Mandate and Methodology on November 19th, 2016

      I think here it is important to add:

      collective online work by Youth LAC IGF participants and Youth Observatory on “Young Latin American Women Declaration: Enabling access to empower young women and build a feminist Internet Governance”, here.

  • Sandra Hoferichter

    • 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.  

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Thank you for this opportunity of providing input and for extending the public consultation deadline.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • Sara Baker

    • Comment on PART A: Findings on November 24th, 2016

      This may have already been addressed, and I apologize if I missed it. APC and several other organisations and groups discourage the use of the term “revenge pornography” due to it not always being associated with revenge and not being pornography (i.e., not consensual). Terms such as “non-consensual sharing of intimate images” and “blackmail” or “sexualised blackmail” are preferable. Since “sharing photographs of women without authorization” comes right after “revenge pornography,” would it be adequate to just cut out “revenge pornography” and add “and videos” after “sharing photographs”? Another option would be to write “so-called revenge pornography” with a footnote.

  • Silvia Hagen

  • Susan Hyon Parker

  • Usuarios Digitales

    • Its important to make concience about cybersecurity in the people and the only way to do that is showing them in real time how insecure could be an internet provider, a social network, a PC, a mobile device, etc.

      In Latin America, the people have a poor cybersecurity knowledge and for this everyone could be exposed to be hacked or personal information stolen.

      It is important to make more campaigns about cybersecurity issues and how easy is to a cybercriminal to stole or hack a device or system.

      The Goverments around the world should be working more together in this topics.

      The IGF should have more of this spaces and workshops to work with all ages people that have to know that their devices or personal data is under risk and the easier way to fix it

    • In Ecuador we have a CSIRT but until today it does not working as its should be.

      We still cybersecurity issues that are not being reported by the civil society and our CSIRT https://www.ecucert.gob.ec/pgp.html is very poor in resources and are not very open to listen the society.

      Maybe in this IGF we could be guided to another countries or CSIRTs that works together with the civil society

    • Its good to know about the IPv6 in Ecuador but we are very delayed on Internet of things. And also in cybersecurity issues. If we dont fix the bugs and make concience in the civil society, in the near future all the country could be vulnerable to cyberatacks

  • vint cerf

  • Willy MANGA

  • Wim Degezelle

  • Wim Degezelle

    • text amended:

      Typically this model is introduced when the IXP matures and has proven its value to operators and the ecosystem.

    • one sentence added to the previous section:

      In some countries the IXP’s institutional model and the choice between a for-profit or not-for-profit organisation may depend on local legislation.

    • text added to par. 37:

      The IXP Ecuador, for example, is run as a for-profit business and is pursuing a not-for-profit goal. Its for-profit business model foresees in a Consultative Council with representatives from all members to assure the IXP’s neutral course in the benefit of the local Internet ecosystem.

    • IXPs work in a dynamic environment.  It is important to be conscious of the commercial environment and market, observe trends and understand how the market is developing. Are there direct competitors for the IXPs? Can other factors dramatically change current situation? A stable and quiet commercial environment can quickly transform in a more competitive market. A good example is a sudden decrease in the cost for international transfer (e.g. resulting from higher competition on this market or new undersea cables) which has a direct impact on the cost saving networks could realise by peering at the IXP.

    • amended text:

      Budget transparency:; it is important to show to members what their money is used for. A lack of budget transparency can lead to discussions and questions from cost conscious members, and reduce their trust in the IXP.

       

       

    • text   amended

    • Comment on 1. Introduction and Background on November 8th, 2016

      +1

      This is as a positive message right ?  ‘work has to continue on cf. last 4 year’

    • Comment on 1. Introduction and Background on November 8th, 2016

      this section is intended as a high-level introduction & summary of last year’s work.

      I agree with your comment; the underlying message should be ‘not deploying IPv6 to safe on costs will backfire as a higher cost in the future’

      question: do we need section 1.2.3. ?  ( in section 5 and 6 of the document we discuss challenges and hurdles based on the case studies )

    • Comment on 1. Introduction and Background on November 8th, 2016

      resolved

    • Comment on 1. Introduction and Background on November 8th, 2016

      addition new par. 26 bis:

      On 7 November 2016, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) advised that network standards need to fully support IPv6. ‘The IAB expects that the IETF will stop requiring IPv4 compatibility in new or extended protocols’, and that ‘future IETF protocol work will then optimize for and depend on IPv6’.

      (suggestion received on mailing list)

    •  the number of discrete IPv6 allocations by the RIRs

    • resolved – text addition:

       
      One /32 block represents an address space of 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 IPv6 addresses, which means that one block much larger than the whole IPv4 space.
      /table/
      By October 2016, the total volume of IPv6 space given out was 202,660.02 /32 blocks. Although this is more than 202,600 times the IPv4 Internet space, it only represents 0.038% of the available IPv6 space.

    • Comment on 5. Remaining Challenges on November 8th, 2016

      the following subsections are suggested:
      6.1. Takeaways for policy makers
      6.2. Takeaways for business decision makers
      6.3. Additional questions to be addressed

  • Ziaur Rahman

Source: https://www.intgovforum.org/review/comments-by-commenter/