December 19, 2016
Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0
Contact the IGF Secretariat:
Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0
Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0
Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
Contact the NRIs Network:
Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0
December 21, 2016 at 4:47 pm
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)
See in context
December 21, 2016 at 4:46 pm
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)
December 20, 2016 at 2:52 pm
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.ourinternet.org/report (Global Commission on Internet Governance)
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/591571452529901419/WDR16-BP-Multistakeholder-Dutton.pdf (World Bank)
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.
February 7, 2017 at 4:42 am
-Open Internet to everyone
January 6, 2017 at 9:18 am
I would think it appropriate to include here a more specific item on involvement of private sector, under the larger banner of responsible intermediaries/entities, that was mentioned in the framing section. Otherwise the recommendations oscillate predominantly between policy and technical communities.
January 6, 2017 at 9:01 am
Interesting idea and would like to read more, perhaps in the form of a specific best practice. Especially as it presents a tension with the assumed heterogeneity of multistakeholderism. While subject focus is important, it must also be balanced with the benefits of diverse views and experiences that influence outcomes.
January 6, 2017 at 8:39 am
I think Adam’s comment is well received. However, I’m not sure that it fits into the text here as it is rather specific. There are some more best practices that could be listed here, such as code audits or FLOSS development. Suffice to mention the importance of responsible intermediaries to put in place processes and mechanisms to facilitate coordination with and among those from all stakeholder groups with the knowledge and skill sets necessary to improve cybersecurity.
January 6, 2017 at 8:32 am
add “[sic]” as after some sourcing and re-reading I believe the sentence should read “… issues such as education…”
December 28, 2016 at 10:23 am
amended in final text: 5.1.1. Meetings and Events segmented in two parts: ‘at the local level’ and ‘at the regional, international and global level’
December 28, 2016 at 10:16 am
Indeed, par. 7 and 11 are out of place
December 28, 2016 at 9:53 am
case study added
December 28, 2016 at 9:21 am
Thank you Malcolm; amended text:
IXP business models vary depending on whether an IXP is for-profit or not-for-profit. In general, a for-profit IXP aims to be profitable and distributes this profit as a dividend, or equivalent payment, while not-for-profit IXPs exchange traffic without the intention of distributing profit, but with the intent to invest any surplus in the future development of the IXP.
Website content © Internet Governance Forum 2020. All rights reserved.