Talk:Should I click for Internet governance? Where? – WS 01 2015

From EuroDIG Wiki
Revision as of 12:46, 9 April 2015 by Sorina (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Minutes of the first virtual meeting (9 April)

In the introductory part of the meeting, a discussion was held on how to best combine and connect the various proposals identified as relevant to WS 1 (EuroDIG proposal and SEEDIG framing questions) into a session that would have a clear focus, allow for meaningful discussions and result in some concrete outcomes. It was agreed that the session should try to look into issues related to the connection between Internet access, empowerment and participation in a digital society and in Internet governance processes (as these are all interconnected issues, one leading to another).

1. Session objectives

The following objectives were provisionally agreed (they can be further refined during the preparatory process):

  • discuss the connection between Internet access, empowerment and active participation in a digital society and in Internet governance processes;
  • identify prerequisites, challenges and possible ways forward;
  • develop forward looking key messages connected to the overarching theme.

2. Session title

It was agreed that the current title of the session needs to be revised; the new title should be clear, concise, "catchy" and forward-looking. Some suggestions were made during the meeting and they will be the basis for further discussions:

  • “Connected, and what now? Where should I click for IG?”
  • “Connecting internet access with meaningful participation in a digital society and Internet governance”

3. Overarching theme/teaser

The overarching theme should represent the focus of the session; it will frame the entire discussions and help develop sets of sub-questions. The following overarching theme was provisionally agreed (it can be further refined during the preparatory process): “The road from Internet access to an active and meaningful participation in a digital society and in Internet governance processes: the way forward”. This will also be used as a session teaser.

4. Format

It was agreed that the session would be shaped into a "cafe world" type - this would encourage/allow all participants to contribute to the session in a more substantive manner and could also also contribute to leading the discussions towards some concrete take-aways/key messages/etc.

Key elements for this session format:

  • divide the audience into several break-out groups that would discuss around a pre-defined set of questions connected to the overarching theme. Some groups will focus on issues related to empowerment and participation in a digital society, while the others will focus on issues related to participation in Internet governance processes.
  • have the break out groups interact: report on their findings, putting findings together, identifying connections between empowerment, participation in a digital society and participation in IG processes, while also trying to develop key messages that would respond to the overarching theme.

When preparing the relevant set of questions for the break-out groups and for the full room discussions, we will be guided by the proposals already on the table. We can also ask for more input before the session, via the wiki - where everyone can add more questions.

Challenges:

  • get a sense of how many participants the session will have. (We could use the wiki for that, asking people to express interest for participating in the session. We could also get a rough idea on the number of participants based on the total number of EuroDIG participants - but at a later stage).
  • prepare questions in advance in such a way that they are relevant to the session focus, forward-looking and can lead participants to meaningful discussions and message shapping.

5. Roles

Given the agreed session format, there will be no key participants as such, as everyone in the room will participate in the discussions. In order to facilitate the discussions, the session would need:

  • one general facilitator/host, to:
    • introduce the session (objective, overarching theme/focus, format);
    • facilitate the debates during the full room discussions and lead participants towards the development of key messages;
  • break-out group facilitators, to facilitate the debates within the working groups.

All facilitators will need to have some high level of expertise on the subject matters of the session, and be skillful in leading the discussions and engaging participants. Members of the org team could also contribute to the break-out group discussions, helping facilitators to lead the discussions towards achieving the objectives of the session.

7. Next steps

The focal team will work on a draft session description, title and key questions, taking into account the discussions today. These will then be shared with the full org team, input will be collected via the mailing list and a new virtual meeting will then be organised.

Indicative timeline: by 20 April (hopefully sooner) - draft session description, title and questions; virtual meeting in the week of 20 April or early in the week of 27 April; agreement by 30 April (in line with the EuroDIG deadline).

Proposals relevant to the theme of this session

1. EuroDIG proposals

Sub-category: Participation in IG policy making

  • Democratising internet governance: developing together a user based approach
  • How to assure Government's participation in Multistakeholder Process of Internet Governance. Balanced participation of NGO, Business, Government and Academia. Range of issues to discuss in the Internet Governance Commission.
  • Attempts of top-down regulation of IG processes in Eastern European countries. Lack of democratic institutions to balance Soviet-fashion hierarchies. Centralization of power vs participative governance. Camouflage multistakeholderism. How to ensure balance between power structures & government’s other branches; business & the public? Do we build open democracies or revive Soviet dreams?
  • Convergence in Internet Governance: Bottom-up Meets Topdown As the Internet expands into areas traditionally governed via top-down mechanisms (spectrum management, the energy sector), is a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model equipped to negotiate this convergence?

Sub-category: Empowerment

  • How access leads to empowerment in terms of local content and social and political development.
  • Internet Governance for sustainable development and empowerment- what about accountability?
  • How to strengthen the civil society participation in Internet governance: successful strategies to apply the multistakeholder governance model, the role of the civil society organisations (CSO).
  • How to ensure the Internet drives democratic movements, and not only empowers powerful elites? Is providing access to technology and the Web enough to enable the development of societies? What strategies and/or capacity building initiatives are required to promote change in those societies?

Others

  • Are open standards and networking technologies advanced enough to support and help realize the expansive growth of the Internet and as the Internet progresses to the Internet of Things and beyond?
  • Citizenship in a digitalized society - which prerequisites?
  • Internet governance for open innovation - driven social value
    • Internet governance and Porter's (2011) social value concept
    • Closed vs. open innovation?
    • IG focus, role and differentiation in developed and in emerging economies - equality, or disparity?
    • Why open innovation networking matters for MSEs?
    • IG facilitator or burden for MSEs development and growth?


2. SEEDIG questions

Sessions 1 - Introduction to Internet governance ("What is Internet governance and why should I care?")

  • What does Internet governance mean for stakeholders in the region? How is the term perceived?
  • Why is/is not Internet governance relevant for stakeholders in the region?
  • Why is it important for stakeholders in the region to get engaged in regional and global IG processes and organisations? What are the main challenges and reasons preventing stakeholders in SEE to engage in regional and global IG processes and organisations? How to deal with these challenges? What motivates those who do get involved?

Session 2 - Multistakeholder Internet governance mechanisms/approaches at national level

  • What is a multistakeholder mechanism in the Internet governance ecosystem? How do/should such mechanisms function?
  • What are the best practices and experiences from the region in terms of developing and implementing multistakeholder mechanisms? What motivated the creation of such multistakeholder mechanisms? Have regional and international organisations and processes (such as IGF, ICANN, European Commission, Council of Europe) played a role here? If so, what role? What were the challenges in building national multistakeholder mechanisms? How were they addressed? How do these mechanisms function nowadays? Are there more challenges?
  • Why have some countries succeeded in implementing MSH mechanisms and others have not? Can the existing best practices be replicated in other countries in the region? If yes, how? If not, why?