Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Community feedback questionnaire on the draft igf programme framework chart 2018 by shreedeep rayamajhi

18 views

Published on

Community feedback questionnaire on the draft igf programme framework chart 2018 by shreedeep rayamajhi for IGF2018

Published in: Internet
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Community feedback questionnaire on the draft igf programme framework chart 2018 by shreedeep rayamajhi

  1. 1. https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/community-feedback- questionnaire-on-the-draft-igf-programme-framework-chart 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. 1. INPUTS 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?
  2. 2. 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 developed. 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
  3. 3. 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. 6. OUTPUTS 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
  4. 4. 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? No, 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. _______________________ Shreedeep Rayamajhi Editor -Rayznews http://www.rayznews.com/ Founder- Learn Internet Governance http://learninternetgovernance.blogspot.com/

×