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

Guiding questions

The list of questions below is aimed to guide the discussions before and during the session. It is not intended to be exhaustive, nor are all the questions indicated here compulsory to be addressed in their entirety.

All stakeholders are kindly invited to provide their input with regards to this session in advance of the EuroDIG meeting. This input can take the form of either additional questions or answers to the existing questions. Such input will be reflected on the wiki and will feed into the actual session in Sofia.

You can either add your input directly on this page, or email it to us, at ws1@eurodig.org.

If you choose to add your input directly on this page, please do so by:

• either adding answers after any of the questions below;
• or adding new questions, under any category, after the existing ones.

Please note that you need to register and log in to edit the wiki. To create an account, contact: digitalfacilitation@eurodig.org

Overarching question

How to move forward from Internet access to an active and meaningful participation in a digital society and in Internet governance processes?

Guiding questions

1. Setting the scene

1.1. What does it mean to be an active participant in a digital society?

1.2. What does it mean to be an active participant in Internet governance processes?

1.3. Can we talk about passive Internet users and active Internet users when it comes to participation in the digital society and in Internet governance processes?

2. Relevance and motivations

2.1. Why should Internet users (from all stakeholder groups) become active participants in a digital society?

2.2 Why should Internet users (from all stakeholder groups) become active participants in Internet governance processes?

2.3. Why is active participation important for the sustainable development of the (digital) society and for efficient Internet governance processes that respond to the needs and interests of all stakeholder groups?

2.4. What motivates the various stakeholders to participate in the digital society and in Internet governance processes?

3. Prerequisites

3.1. What empowers stakeholders to become active participants in the digital society and in Internet governance processes?

3.2. How is the Internet empowering stakeholders to participate in the economic, social, cultural and political development of the (digital) society? Is an Internet user by default a participant in/contributor to the (development of) digital society and Internet governance processes?

3.3. Is Internet access enough by itself to empower stakeholders? Or are there other enablers (such as digital literacy, capacity building, awareness, adequate public policies, etc.)?

3.4. Can we talk about active and meaningful participation of all stakeholder groups only in the context of bottom-up multistakeholder frameworks? Or can top-down approaches become multistakeholder, open and inclusive, and equally attract or allow for meaningful participation of all stakeholder groups?

4. Challenges and barriers to participation

4.1. What are the challenges and barriers that prevent or make it difficult for various stakeholders to actively and meaningfully participate in the digital society and in Internet governance processes?

4.2. Does the economic, social, cultural and/or political background of a country influence the ability of stakeholders within that country to become active participants in the digital society and in Internet governance processes? If yes, how? Looking at the situation in Europe, are there differences between East and West when it comes to participation (in terms of awareness, interest, motivation, ability to participate)? If yes, what are those differences and why do they exist? Furthermore, are there differences between the various stakeholder groups when it comes to participation (in terms of awareness, interest, motivation, ability to participate)?

5. Modalities for participation - possible ways forward

5.1. What is the connection between Internet access, empowerment and active and meaningful participation in the digital society and in Internet governance processes?

5.2. How to move from simple Internet access to an active and meaningful participation in the digital society and in Internet governance processes? Who has responsibilities in this regard? What are these responsibilities and how can they be fulfilled?

5.3. How to overcome the challenges and barriers to participation? Is there a need for different approaches for different stakeholders coming from different countries?

5.4. How to ensure that there are equal opportunities for all stakeholders to actively participate in the digital society and in Internet governance processes? How to ensure a balanced participation of all stakeholder groups in Internet governance processes? How to strengthen the participation of those stakeholders that are currently under-represented?

5.5. What makes participation in the digital society meaningful?

5.6. What makes participation in Internet governance processes meaningful?

5.7. In other words, what is the framework within which the various Internet stakeholders can become active participants in the digital society and in Internet governance processes, and what should stakeholders themselves do to become active participants?

Fourth virtual meeting (21 May)

Discussions continued on the format and content of the session. It was agreed to prepare an agenda/outline for the workshop, based on the information already available on the wiki. A first draft agenda is available here.

Third virtual meeting (12 May)

The third virtual meeting was focused on discussions on: key facilitator and remote moderator for the session, the public call for input, youth involvement, participation and logistics.

1. Key facilitator

Taking into account the previously agreed session format (world-cafe), it was underlined that the role of the key facilitator will be essential for the success of the session. As such, the key facilitator will have to:

• introduce the session (explain the objective, focus, format and structure), and
• facilitate the discussions during the final part of the session (the full room discussion), when participants will discuss their findings and the main ideas resulting from the break-out groups, and will try to develop and agree on a set of key messages related to the session focus.

Following discussions on several options for the key facilitator, it was agreed to invite Olivier Crépin-Leblond to take this role. Olivier was contacted after the meeting and he kindly accepted the invitation. He is therefore copied on this email and will be added to ws1 email address.

2. Rapporteur

It was agreed that, given the format of the session, there is no need for a rapporteur, as the key facilitator will have the role of guiding the audience towards agreeing on a set of key messages resulting from the session.

3. Remote moderator

Narine Khachatryan volunteered to be remote moderator for the session. Her role will be to ensure that input from remote participants is fed both into the break-out group discussions and into the full room discussions.

We will also try to identify a youth participant to assist Narine in doing remote moderation. Participants in the New Media Summer School would be suitable candidates for this.

4. Call for public input

Participants were reminded that the call for public input on the guiding questions developed for WS1 has been launched. However, no input has been received so far, and members of the org team were encouraged to use various channels (mailing lists, twitter, facebook, etc) in order to more "aggressively" promote this call and invite contributions. It was underlined that, if such input is received before the meeting in Sofia, it will be compiled by the org team and fed into the session itself.

One suggestion was made to distribute the guiding questions to participants in the New Media Summer School and encourage them to consider providing input and participate in the session. This suggestion will be acted upon.

5. Logistics and participation

Given the current state of registrations for EuroDIG, we can expect a sufficient number of participants in the session to allow for the creation of break-out groups. In terms of logistics, the Secretariat confirmed that WS1 will be allocated a room with a world-cafe set-up (round tables for break out group discussions).

6. Next steps

Given that a key facilitator has been identified for the session, it would be useful to have another virtual meeting (the final one before Sofia) for all of us to look again through the details regarding the format and content of the session and clarify any issues, if they appear. Hopefully, we will also have some input from the public by then with regards to the guiding questions. A doodle poll has been set up with options for such a meeting. The poll with be closed on Sunday, 17 May.

Second virtual meeting (27 April)

The second virtual meeting was focused on discussions on the session title, description, format and guiding questions.

1. Session description, format and questions

The org team agreed on the session description, format and guiding questions. All these are now published on the main page. The list of guiding questions is not intended to be exhaustive, not are all questions indicated there compulsory to be addressed during the session. These questions are aimed to guide the discussions and help participants better understand the focus of the session.

2. Session title

Several options for the session title were discussed, and two of them remained on the table at the end of the virtual meeting:

• Connected, and what now? Where should I click for IG?
• Digital society and Internet governance: from passive users to active participants

It was said that, while the first option is more attractive, the second one seems to better reflect the focus of the session. While in the end there seemed to be more support for the second option, it was agreed that the group should look a bit more into these issues and, ideally, try to combine the two proposed titles into a third one that is both attractive and reflective on the session focus.

Work was done online following the virtual meeting, and the group tried to come up with a new proposal, based on the two titles that were still on the table, and in an attempt to have a session title that is attractive and would make people curious about and interested in the session. The agreed title is: "Should I click for Internet governance? Where?"

This might not reflect the entire content of the session, but there are the teaser, description and questions to explain things in detail. And, while it might look confusing, the org team sees it as a constructive ambiguity, aimed at making people curious about the session.

3. Reaching out and inviting input before Sofia

It was agreed that, following publication of all session details on the wiki, the group would work on outreach - via the wiki, Twitter and Facebook -, in order to spread the word about this session and invite people to contribute to our session in advance of the EuroDIG meeting itself. This means we would invite input on the guiding questions (either possible answers to the questions or new questions all together) before the meeting in Sofia. Any input received will be reflected on the wiki and fed into the discussions in Sofia.

4. Role of org team (including focal points)

Members of the org team are expected to be present at the session in Sofia and help facilitate the break-out group discussions. While each break-out group would designate/choose its own lead (to remain at the table during the inter-group discussions and to communicate the group's conclusions during the full room dialogue), members of the org team would provide guidance where neccesary and assist the groups in taking the discussions on the "right track", in accordance with the session focus.

Members of the org team will also try to ensure that SEEDIG messages are taken into account during the discussions. SEEDIG participants present at this session will also be encouraged to share such SEEDIG messages related to the focus session and include them into the discussions.

5. Next steps and call for input

• identification of a key facilitator. This needs to be done by 15 May. Suggestions and volunteers and welcome by 3 May.
• identification of a remote moderator and a rapporteur. The deadline is also 15 May. Suggestions and volunteers are welcome.
• next virtual meeting: second part of the 4 May week or early in the 11 May week (to be announced).

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?