Community feedback questionnaire on the draft igf programme framework chart 2018 by shreedeep rayamajhi
Does the Draft Chart accurately represent the current process of a one-
year cycle of the IGF? Why? Why not?
The Draft chart certainly has ensured better engagement but there are few things which can be tuned to
make it work more efficiently
-The NRI group and MAG members synchronization is kind of lacking, the facilitation process needs open
and flexible form of communication
-There is a lack of representation and domination of developed countries and lack of representation of
least developed countries which needs to be prioritized as it effects the over all process
Part 2 – Process Suggestions
With reference to specific areas of the Draft Chart, please submit any ideas
that you may have for making the IGF process more efficient, scalable, and
transparent. The WG-MWP seeks responses that include, but are not limited
to, the questions below.
a. Are inputs used effectively to ensure that the work of the previous
cycle is either continued or concluded?
The inputs are used effectively to ensure the wok of the previous cycle to continue in terms of creating a
better engagement and collaborative environment. More focused strategies and communication
process needs to be engaged to create a clarity and fluidity. The MAG members need to further
collaborate with the regional leaders and their engagement needs to be collaborative for increasing the
effectiveness and efficiency.
b. Have you seen your suggestions as part of the input process
reflected in the IGF annual meeting?
Yes, I think the IGF represents the voice of people and from last few years the process is changing but as
we said the process is bottoms up, so we need to focus on issues of lower economies with priority to
diversity, representation and vulnerable group etc.
c. Are there any other inputs aside from those listed on the Draft
Chart that you think should be considered?
I think we need a certain segment of inclusion of minorities and diversity issues in terms of how MAG
can correlate with the current evolving issues. Mutistakeholder is not just about bottoms up approach
it’s the overall process of recognition and establishing the values as well which is hugely lacking.
2. MAG MEETING NO. 1
a. Are there other agenda items the MAG should consider, or goals to
achieve, during Meeting No. 1?
I think there needs to be individual intervention from the MAG members to coordinate with the NRI
group or region to shortlist the issues just in case to have a back up plan. Collaboration is the key major
of the times issue emerge from the developing nation where least developed countries lack
representation and voice even at open call as there is a limitation of capacity and understanding
b. Are the criteria and procedures clear for choosing BPF topics and
other intersessional work streams? If not, what are
recommendations for improvement?
The BPF has been very effective in terms of creating a broader picture of internet ecosystem. It needs to
be timely coordinated with issues of concern issues and indicator where even new standard can be
c. Should the Call for Issues take place before or after Meeting No. 1?
The call for issue should happen before the meeting no 1 as it helps to further create basis of identifying
the core issues.
3. VIRTUAL WORK
a. What improvements can be made to the process and selection
criteria for workshop, open forum, and village booth proposals?
1. Next generation promoting themes should be prioritized
2. Least developed countries proposal and participation needs to be prioritized
3. Lack of representation matters and ASIA pacific lacks in Number except for the IGF
happening in the region
4. We want more leaders from Asia pacific in the MAG process
5. MAG communication needs to open in terms of setting up a broad strategy highlighting
collaborative leadership in terms of effective operation and management of supporting
4. MAG MEETING NO. 2
a. Is the process of contributing to the IGF agenda clear and
accessible? Why? Why not?
The process is very clear in terms of its operation. I think the priority is not just about working from a
center point only, the point is about reaching the end point and having the growth from there.
Especially in developing and lower economies there is a huge lack of information about mutistakeholder
process and collaborative leadership which at times hinders the over all process. So, this issue needs
focus in terms of identifying the indicators.
b. Is the process of featuring various types of sessions on the IGF
agenda clear, transparent, and predictable? Why? Why not?
The whole point of making the IG process in a more transparent way is to help people understand and
can create better understanding of the IGF Process. The standardization of the IG in context of today has
various understanding and the debate goes on whether the mutistakeholder process of IGF is right or
wrong. The main thing is not about how we can make the process more transparent the whole idea is to
make it so simple and easy that people start working their way in.
Right now the overall MAG process is kind of complicated in context of the individual stakeholder, We
need to recognized the minority group and their voices and bring them to the table.
5. IGF EVENT ANNUAL MEETING
a. Is the process for selection of main session topics and
organization of sessions sufficiently clear and transparent?
The process is very clear, but it is directly affected by the configuration of the MAG representation
which at times is subjected to developed and developing countries at most.
b. Is the current IGF programme setting process well equipped to
discuss new and emerging issues?
The limitation of having limited MAG members from Developed and developing nation limits the voice
of the lower economies /Least developed countries. As mutistakeholder is a bottom’s up approach we
need to prioritized lower economies issues and MAG members from lower economies.
a. Are these the right existing IGF outputs? Can you give any
examples from your community? Can you identify others?
As I said above the overall concept of mutistakeholder needs a recognition of the minority stakeholder
as when we are saying bottom up approach and priority of the least developed country. We cannot see
their representation. There are various barriers of stakeholders where mostly only developed and
developing nation representatives are idealized. If the IG process is bottoms up we need representation
of minority group and representation.
b. Do you and/or your community use these outputs? If so, how? If
not, why not?
Yes, we have been using these feedbacks in the national level practice, where we have identified the
minority groups and have created groups to voice the issue of concern.
c. Do you think existing IGF outputs are widely known or accessible
enough? What can be improved?
The IGF outputs are kind of limited to documents and achieves which can be used in various ways of
creating policy. It needs to be idealized in various other IG process at national and regional level. it
needs to have the clarity of use and operation as well.
d. Do you think there is a need for further/other outputs?
e. How can the current IGF cycle best build on outputs of past years
through a more systematic and inclusive process?
The learnings from the past needs to be idealized to adapt the future giving space and existence to
various economies in context of development and geography. We must identify and work on specifically
if we want to create a standard.
Founder- Learn Internet Governance