Hi,
Though, just having checked the Best Practice Forum (BPF) I am
co-facilitating on multistakeholder mechanisms, I noticed that 3
governments did submit a contribution to our last call for comment:
Indonesia, Switzerland and the UK. And in some other groups, some the
MAG co-facilitators are Government members of the MAG.
avri
On 28-Aug-15 08:26, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do not recall if/when we decided to start calling them working groups
> and do not recall an extended (if any) conversation on the topic, we
> just are calling them that. There may have been a moment when we where
> using names awkwardly and just decided they were 'working groups or
> whatever we called them,' eventually shortened to working groups. Sorry,
> though, I do not remember an official moment, maybe some other MAG
> participant remembers. Or you might just have to do the academic thing
> and investigate the record for that particular thread. And who knows,
> someone may notice it as you have done and complain, in which case we
> can go back to 'wgs or whatever we call them.
>
> I do not think Governments are participating that much qua governments
> in the WGs, though some individuals are. Gov't MAG members are sitting
> in the MAG listening and commenting on status reports from these groups.
> Have not given it much thought, but could be said to be sitting in
> oversight, though I am sure few would call it such.
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 28-Aug-15 02:37, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Avri
>>
>> I’ve been too swamped of late to follow the MAG list and dig through
>> my folder of saved IGF intersessional messages, so I wonder if you
>> could just clarify something for me: when and how did the nomenclature
>> "intersessional /BPF working groups" get accepted? You probably
>> recall that back in 2005-2006 we (via the IG Caucus) were arguing for
>> working groups, and at I think the very first open consultation when I
>> got up and talked about forming these to work intersessionally on
>> different topics of concern to developing country governments in a
>> multistakeholder fashion, the Australian government rep (from John
>> Howard’s regime) very sternly replied that WGs could not exist in IGF
>> because it’s an intrinsically UN bureaucratic construct that would
>> invariably yield horrors so we instead had to roll with ‘dynamic
>> coalitions’ that most of those governments wouldn’t take seriously or
>> join. Which of course helped to feed the G77 & China’s ten years of
>> complaining that the IGF doesn’t “do anything” or yield “outcomes” of
>> interest to them. But now we can say WG? Are they formulated any
>> differently from DCs, or officially blessed? Are governments joining
>> them?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 4:53 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> I encourage people to read and get involved in commenting on the various
>>> documents being posted by all of these groups. The 'working group'
>>> activity with the IGF is growing and there are lots of opportunities to
>>> contribute on all sorts of topics both in these fora and in the dynamic
>>> coalitions. Planning groups for most of the sessions are also open for
>>> participation.
>>>
>>> I will be attending the MAG meeting in Paris*. Let me know if you need
>>> anything or if the remote particpation isn't working for you, I can at
>>> least pass messages on.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> * Self funded through using miles and staying at a friend's apartment as
>>> well as a measure of deficit financing.
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: [Bp_multistakeholder] IGF Best Practices - OC and MAG meeting
>>> next week
>>> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:35:19 +0000
>>> From: Constance Bommelaer <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> To: MAG-public <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> CC: [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
>>> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
>>> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
>>> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
>>> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>>
>>> As part of next week's OC and MAG meeting
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/jevents/icalrepeat.detail/2015/09/02/284/-/igf-third-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting?Itemid=28&filter_reset=1#general-information>
>>> in Paris (2-4 Sept.), coordinators and experts of the various IGF Best
>>> Practices Forums
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums>will be giving
>>> updates on where their groups stand.
>>>
>>>
>>> Over the past weeks, stakeholders have been working within virtual
>>> groups on a number of issues. Within a few weeks, all draft outputs will
>>> be ready and up for public comments on the IGF website. We expect to
>>> have some of the drafts up for the MAG meeting next week. Following an
>>> iterative process, the drafts will then evolve on the basis of comments
>>> received, and finally be discussed at IGF Brazil, in November.
>>>
>>> IGF Best Practices Forums are open to all interested stakeholders.
>>> To learn more about these initiatives and join the discussion, click on
>>> the links below:
>>>
>>> 1. */Best Practices to Strengthen Multistakeholder Mechanisms/*
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/3-developing-meaningful-multistakeholder-participation-mechanisms>
>>> 2. */Enabling Environments for Establishing Successful IXPs/*
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/6-enabling-environments-to-establish-successful-ixps>
>>> 3. */Best Practices to counter Abuse Against Women Online/*
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/4-practices-to-countering-abuse-against-women-online>
>>> 4. */Establishing and Supporting CSIRTs/*
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/2-establishing-and-supporting-csirts>
>>> 5. */Best Practices to Regulate and Mitigate Spam/*
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/regulation-and-mitigation-of-unwanted-communications>
>>> 6. */Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption/*
>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/5-creating-an-enabling-environment-for-ipv6-adoption>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Participate remotely next week*
>>>
>>>
>>> Below is the link to the agenda for next week's Open Consultation and
>>> MAG meeting at UNESCO in Paris. In due time the links will be live for
>>> accessing the meeting via remote participation, as well as the webcast
>>> archives and transcripts, etc. - so as to allow you all to follow the
>>> MAG and broader community discussions set to take place:
>>>
>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/jevents/icalrepeat.detail/2015/09/02/284/-/igf-third-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting?Itemid=28&filter_reset=1
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Constance Bommelaer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> <Attached Message Part.txt>
>> *********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q
>> *********************************************************
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
