[discuss] Learning from NetMundial (WAS Re: [Internet Policy] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING)

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

For what it is worth, I found the mechanisms used to seek comment - both offline and in the room - to be excellent. I was particularly attracted to the short, round-robin interventions in the meeting, which forced everyone to make their points succinctly and for communities to try and come together around common positions, which was also good.

The process of synthesising that into revisions to the basic text was less so, though given the amount of time there was in the conference this was always going to be very difficult to do.

I certainly think future meetings should innovate in the direction of NetMundial with respect to input. 

On 27 Apr 2014, at 10:01, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> 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.
> 

-- 
Regards,
 
Nick Ashton-Hart
Executive Director, Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance (IDEA) 
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at internet-ecosystem.net
PGP Fingerprint: BFD5  DF7 7 2E D5 8 636  92E7  735 7 07 03 7 727  9B0A  522 6
Skype: nashtonhart
http://www.internet-economy.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140428/e224b83a/signature.asc>