[discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING

[Dr. Ben Fuller]

Marilyn,

Giving some focus to1net is an excellent idea. George Sadowsky has been urging us to have some discipline as well.  In looking at the document, there are a number of issues appearing in the road map that are gathered together thematically. Perhaps we can use these as a guide for setting up discussion areas on 1net.

Best,

Ben


On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> 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 DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING
> > 
> > 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

________________
Dr Ben fuller
ben at fuller.na
http://www.fuller.na