Grigori Saghyan gregor at arminco.com
Mon Apr 28 08:27:44 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA1

Dear Marilyn,
I support your suggestion to distribute NETmundial outputs  on the
national level. It is very important today.
Grigori Saghyan
On 27.04.2014 18:25, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> I welcome this discussion. I am a new MAG member from business. I
> know, the list is breaking into peals of laughter, but it is true!
> This is my first year to be on the MAG.
> thus, although I have attended all MAG meetings /open
> consultations, and like many of you, worked to make the MAG members
> as open as possible, I now have a MAG responsibility, so I want to
> fulfill that.
> What I would find incredibly helpful is the following:
> -While fully recognizing that the IGF has a process and
> responsibility to fulfill our present path, how do we incorporate
> learnings from NETmundial  into our planning?
> -We have a main session on IG /Evolution of the IG Ecosystem, and I
> am part of that planning team, along with many others:  Specific
> input to how workshops that are also proposed that are relevant to
> topics that were reflected in NETmundial might come into that
> session in a useful, practical, and pragmatic way are going to be
> VERY helpful.
> -We have a number of workshops proposed which are inclusive of
> topics that were reflected in NETmundial: organizers of those
> workshops can be invited [invited/not compelled] to consider how
> they reflect NETmundial statement into their workshop.
> I found NETmundial an amazing experience and experiment, and I was 
> privileged to be able to attend.
> I offer us all three suggestions:
> -NETmundial suggested that there are various fora where the outputs
> of NETmundial can be discussed farther/the IGF was mentioned many
> times, but we need to recognize that we have work to do in many
> fora, including at a national level. -At NETmundial, some topics
> were seemingly advanced.  NETmundial Statement is a sort of rough
> consensus/that was not the term used, but it was a truely advanced
> collaboration across stakeholders. -I am at CSTD WG EC next week,
> and the NETmundial Statement will be so much a part of our
> discussions.
> Okay, it is four suggestions:
> 1NET discuss has not yet found commonality of topics that brings 
> together a coherent focus that brings in a wide diversity of 
> contributors. That is a fact that we all want to move past, and we
> want, undoubtedly, to make 1NET discuss meaningful.
> So, my fourth proposal is that we strive to find subjects from 
> NETmundial, establish different discussions, and strive to advance
> a multi stakeholder discussion that is civil, statesmanlike, and
> works to progress commonality where possible in various topics.
> The section for further work, under the Roadmap might be a place to
> start.
> But that will require some restraint from all: that will require 
> civility in our posting, mutual respect, even when we disagree.
> When the IGF was first launched, civility was often lacking in 
> exchanges. We had an immensely influential spirit guide -- Nitan --
> who coached us, mentored us, and today, at the IGF, we do disagree,
> often quite strongly and passionately, but we are civil in the
> discourse, and in the disagreements.
> During NETmundial, a similar spirit emerged. With some defined
> topics that can benefit from a broad, civil discussion, respecting
> differences, about a broad range of topics.
> I hope to see the influence of this spirit into 1NET.
> All can benefit so much from thoughtful discussion, informed
> discussion, expression of different points of views.  But, I do
> have a criteria for whom I listen to, and I listen as much to CS,
> technical community, governments, as I listen to business: and that
> is fact based and civility, even in different and even passionately
> held views.  The benefit of 1NET is that I can listen to diverse
> voices, but I can't if it is only noise and hostility, and lack of
> substance and lack of organization of topics. That is because it
> comes across at static.
> this is not a criticism of anyone. It is an appeal.
> I made a statement during NETmundial: we can talk about tough
> topics, but not in a tough way.
> Recently, George Sadowsky has proposed some evolution of our
> discourse processes for 1NET.
> I too want to make 1NET a trusted space to talk about tough topics,
> but in a civil and mutually respectful manner. And with some
> organization so that participants can select where/which topics
> most engage them.
> If we do that, we will make 1NET a truly collaborative, and
> contributing to the broader discussions about IG evolution, and we
> will build on the spirit of NETmundial.
> And, we will draw so many more to post and contribute to 1NET. 
> Shall we try?
> M -
>> From: jcurran at istaff.org Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:01:37 -0500 
>> To: iza at anr.org CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org;
>> discuss at 1net.org Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE
>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>> I echo with Avri and Raul mostly, but being a MAG member and
>>> also a
> former member of CSTD Working Group for the IGF improvement, I like
> add one more element.
>>> IGF itself and MAG in particular have the Open Consultation
>>> process
> and our coming next Open Consultation is there within a few weeks
> time in Paris.
>>> It will be very nice if lessens learned from NETMundial be
>>> presented
> in a way of concrete proposals and suggestions from anyone into the
> Open Consultation.
>>> So that MAG members and all stakeholders engaged will be able
>>> to
> consider these and go beyond the current state of play.
>>> I mean, MAG (members) per se does not have power to change IGF
>>> by
> itself, but collective voice and work will have. I like to be the 
> servant for that.
>> Izumi -
>> Excellent points. I think we need to consider the format and
>> lessons
> from NETmundial,
>> and figure out how to advance the cause of Internet Governance;
>> what I
> cannot discern
>> is how much of the NETmundial format and output development
>> process
> should be drawn
>> into IGF and/or whether having a linkage to a periodic
>> IGF-affiliated
> "NETmundial-like"
>> meeting to work on solution exploration for one or two topics
>> would be
> a better format.
>> An affiliated meeting would have the advantage of being able to
> immediately adopt some
>> of the MS participation and outcome development benefits of the
> NETmundial approach,
>> and it could be fed from the set of issue exploration sessions on
>> a
> given topic from the prior
>> IGF meeting(s). It might also be somewhat easier for the IGF
>> partner
> with such a meeting
>> than to attempt to evolve one or more days of its existing agenda
>> and
> processes to achieve
>> the same result.
>> Regardless of the approach taken, we do need to strengthen the
>> IGF,
> including its
>> mandate, financial resources, and intersessional dialogue
> capabilities. Progress
>> in these areas will benefit all regardless of the approach taken
>> to
> provide for more
>> detailed and actionable outcome development.
>> /John
>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
>> list discuss at 1net.org 
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
> list discuss at 1net.org 
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- -- 
Grigori Saghyan
PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the discuss mailing list