<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>I welcome this discussion.<div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>What I would find incredibly helpful is the following:</div><div><br></div><div>-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?</div><div><br></div><div>-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.</div><div><br></div><div>-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.</div><div><br></div><div>I found NETmundial an amazing experience and experiment, and I was privileged to be able to attend. </div><div><br></div><div>I offer us all three suggestions:</div><div><br></div><div>-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. </div><div>-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. </div><div>-I am at CSTD WG EC next week, and the NETmundial Statement will be so much a part of our discussions.</div><div><br></div><div>Okay, it is four suggestions:</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>The section for further work, under the Roadmap might be a place to start. </div><div><br></div><div>But that will require some restraint from all: that will require civility in our posting, mutual respect, even when we disagree. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>I hope to see the influence of this spirit into 1NET. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>this is not a criticism of anyone. It is an appeal. </div><div><br></div><div>I made a statement during NETmundial: we can talk about tough topics, but not in a tough way.</div><div><br></div><div>Recently, George Sadowsky has proposed some evolution of our discourse processes for 1NET. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>And, we will draw so many more to post and contribute to 1NET. </div><div>Shall we try? </div><div><br></div><div>M</div><div>-<br><br><div>> From: jcurran@istaff.org<br>> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:01:37 -0500<br>> To: iza@anr.org<br>> CC: internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org; discuss@1net.org<br>> Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING<br>> <br>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote:<br>> <br>> > 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.<br>> > <br>> > 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.<br>> > <br>> > 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. <br>> > <br>> > So that MAG members and all stakeholders engaged will be able to consider these and go beyond the current state of play.<br>> > <br>> > 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.<br>> <br>> Izumi - <br>> <br>> Excellent points. I think we need to consider the format and lessons from NETmundial, <br>> and figure out how to advance the cause of Internet Governance; what I cannot discern<br>> is how much of the NETmundial format and output development process should be drawn<br>> into IGF and/or whether having a linkage to a periodic IGF-affiliated "NETmundial-like"<br>> meeting to work on solution exploration for one or two topics would be a better format. <br>> An affiliated meeting would have the advantage of being able to immediately adopt some <br>> of the MS participation and outcome development benefits of the NETmundial approach,<br>> and it could be fed from the set of issue exploration sessions on a given topic from the prior <br>> IGF meeting(s). It might also be somewhat easier for the IGF partner with such a meeting <br>> than to attempt to evolve one or more days of its existing agenda and processes to achieve<br>> the same result.<br>> <br>> Regardless of the approach taken, we do need to strengthen the IGF, including its <br>> mandate, financial resources, and intersessional dialogue capabilities. Progress<br>> in these areas will benefit all regardless of the approach taken to provide for more<br>> detailed and actionable outcome development.<br>> <br>> /John<br>> <br>> Disclaimer: My views alone.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> discuss mailing list<br>> discuss@1net.org<br>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>