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