[ccwg-internet-governance] IGF Community Public Consultation: Call for Inputs - Taking stock of the 2016 work program and 11th IGF and suggestions for 2017 and 12th IGF - ICANN Response

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 00:12:27 UTC 2017


Nigel


Thanks so much for submitting this. I don't really want to be the late
commenter who criticizes but there are a couple of points in the report
which are quite interesting. I understand this report was a community
effort which I didn't participate in so I am at fault but still not bad to
know some of the problems with the report

My suggestion for the future is not to divide between positive and negative
points. We can praise but still be constructive.

Below are my comments

- "Not least we believe the idea of having a theme (for each year) that can
be worked on and developed ahead of the Forum should be given serious
consideration."

Farzaneh: A theme? MAG has been coming up with the most redundant,
uninteresting themes of all times, times after time recently. Now we need a
theme for each year? Does it by any chance have sustainable, development,
capacity, etc in it? Lets face it, we can't come up collectively with a
good interesting themes that are not repetetive. So it doesn't really need
to be praised.


- "Presenters and their teams had prepared and presented well for the
Session on National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs); they have much to
offer; this clearly demonstrates that IG is not only global but also local
and national;"


Farzaneh: Did they?! NRIs sessions are among the most poorly organized
sessions with very monotonic, uncritical substance. The problem is not IGF
national and regional initiatives. They are very good. the problem is that
in the process of organizing these, the same organizers and facilitators
get involved and just don't allow others to do anything novel.  I have
heard complaints about how some want to dominate these sessions every year.
And IG is not only global but also local and national? What's so good about
this? IG awareness at local level is great but IG is not global but also
national? What is the point of saying this?

Farzaneh: Closing sessions are rarely interesting I think it might not need
praising

Generally it was thought that the quality of workshops has improved; mainly
thanks to the rigorous analysis by MAG and its leadership;

Farzaneh: I don't think there is such thing as MAG effective  leadership.
MAG times and times again has rejected or curtailed discussions that have
merits and are interesting. Again similar to any collective effort, it has
accepted workshops that have been the flavour of the year for the past 10
years or so ( flavour of the year has to change though, but MAG has decade
old flavours!) I know some MAG members are really trying but this is not a
problem individual MAG members are facing. The design of MAG is awkward and
does not lead to effective leadership. It still works, but I would not call
them effective.


- The Host Country special workshops, and the High Level Event (HLM) on
Day0 were thought positive; as was the high level social event (though see
below);

Farzaneh: Does the high level social event mean the closed gala dinner?
 which was not called the high level social event, it was called gala
dinner, they made a mistake put it on the agenda and everybody thought it
was in fact the gala dinner and then found out it was by invitation only.
And we praised this closed event and said it was positive? It was the first
IGF with closed gala dinner which was disturbing to many members of the
community high level or not. I know that the report also criticizes this
but how can we both praise and criticize!


Thanks again for your effort and submitting it. I think the only way we can
address things is by getting more involved when you call us for drafting
and helping so that the documents would be inclusive and balanced.

Best regards,

Farzaneh








Farzaneh

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
wrote:

> Colleagues
>
> Good evening; further to the below request I attach the ICANN submission
> on this consultation.  Thanks for those who really gave great feedback and
> ideas;
>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> From: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
> Date: Monday 16 January 2017 14:44
> To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> Subject: IGF Community Public Consultation: Call for Inputs - Taking
> stock of the 2016 work program and 11th IGF and suggestions for 2017 and
> 12th IGF
>
> Colleagues
>
> Good Afternoon; further to the request below, would be really opportune,
> and welcome to have any thoughts from those who attended the IGF last month
> on the two highlighted questions below, just brief e-mails  / messages /
> calls would be more than welcome.
>
> If I could have them in next 2-3 days (as deadline in Sunday) that would
> be most welcome.
>
> More views the better (as my memory not that brilliant….)
>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday 27 December 2016 11:14
> To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>
> Subject: IGF Community Public Consultation: Call for Inputs - Taking
> stock of the 2016 work program and 11th IGF and suggestions for 2017 and
> 12th IGF
>
> Good morning
>
> The following has just been posted on the IGF site.  A good opportunity
> post Guadalajara to give some to the MAG:
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-
> community-public-consultation-call-for-inputs-taking-stock-
> of-the-2016-work-program-and
>
> *All IGF stakeholders are invited to submit inputs to the IGF Secretariat
> related to the following questions:*
>
> *A) Taking Stock of 2016 programming, preparatory process, community
> intersessional activities and the 11th annual IGF: What worked well? What
> worked not so well?*
>
> *B) Suggestions for improvements in 2017? (programming, preparatory
> processes, community intersessional activities and improvements for 12th
> annual meeting)*
>
>
> Would be good to have some co-ordinated thoughts; so grateful for any
> inputs by *15th January.  *
>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20170125/2918d2d2/attachment.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list