ICC BASIS interventions at IGF Open Consultations, 15 May 2012, Geneva

MORNING SESSION

Intervention

Delivered by Ayesha Hassan, ICC BASIS

Thank you, Chair. Ayesha Hassan from the International Chamber of Commerce and its BASIS initiative. I would like to follow up on the comments regarding the ministerial events.

We were pleased to participate in the ministerial event held by the host country of Kenya last year before the IGF began, and we found that it was an important opportunity for engaging and discussing among not only governments of ministers but governments and business and civil society and the technical community. So as you consider how to shape the ministerial event, we would certainly emphasize that the exchange across stakeholder groups at that level was productive.

Just wanted to make one other comment and possibility it is a question. You’ve mentioned that you’re working on the visa issues, and we greatly appreciate the exchanges we’ve had in the past on that matter. We are reaching the summer months very quickly. So I just wanted to highlight that it would be really helpful for stakeholders to understand when you think you will have that visa process clarified and posted. I know for many of us, the moment you hit September, the passport needs several different stamps in it and you can’t give up your passport very long to have those things done, especially our colleagues from certain countries face more challenges than others.

So if you could give us a time frame, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Intervention 1

Delivered by Jeff Brueggeman, AT&T

Jeff Brueggeman for AT&T also speaking for ICC-BASIS.

I would like to support the comments made by Janis Karklins. I think that builds on the work that’s already been done to try to capture the national and regional IGF experiences that are

emerging throughout the year and this would be taking a broader perspective of other types of multistakeholder dialogues and decisions and outcomes that we can point to that really are an outgrowth of the IGF process. I think it is a natural continuation of what’s been an ongoing effort at the IGF.

Also wanted to make a comment about the workshop process. About the criteria of the workshop, that strikes me it could be sent out to the workshop organizers along with any speak feedback that has come from the rule from adding diversity to the panelists or that there may be a couple of workshops where there is a merged opportunity and give the workshop organizers a certain window to update their proposals and come back to see if they can get up to the higher criteria. I think there has been a mixture of people not having time and perhaps some confusion, but the criteriaof things like the cosponsor allowing a window of opportunity to address a way to crystallize, a way to organize the workshop

Intervention 2

Delivered byAyesha Hassan, ICC BASIS

We should apply the criteria to all workshop proposals. Many proposals have been submitted by the same entity. To give more people an opportunity to have workshops we should use a flexible assessment and ask those who submitted more than 3 or 4 to choose.

In addition, it would be helpful to provide those organizers time, with a possible appropriate cut off deadline, to finalize those proposals. In the spirit of the IGF for allowing all stakeholder engagement, the publication of all proposals enables the opportunity for those interested in the topics but not aware of the workshop to be part, thereby strengthening the opportunity for new participation and panel suggestions.

The open forum proposals have not been submitted yet. Some workshops may be better as open forums. Also, many proposals come from single entities and the principle of multistakeholder organizers has not been taken into account in many proposals. Many proposals do not have a balanced set of views and stakeholders as speakers.

Finally, there is a lack of business experts identified in many workshop proposals. We would be happy to provide business expertise to balance these workshop proposals, and encourage organizers to get in touch with ICC BASIS and our members to help identify business speakers.

Intervention 3

Delivered by Ayesha Hassan, ICC BASIS

Ayesha Hassan from ICC-BASIS.

A couple of points to perhaps help us in reducing and consolidating the workshops that are selected. First of all, I just want to be clear that we do support having a schedule that is balanced. We have to remember, not only are there workshops and open forums, but there are also the main sessions, that we want to make sure what we hope will be a very strong participation in Baku will not be torn in too many directions at any one time. We also support the emphasis on capacity-building. We should keep that as a focus both in the workshops as well as the main sessions.

And then I also wanted to point out that in some workshop proposals, there’s more reference to information and communication technologies and the emphasis seems to be on ICTs. And I think either the workshop proposers who focus on ICTs should be asked to focus on Internet Governance angles, — we’re at the Internet Governance forum — and we should remain focused in that regard. Thank you.

Intervention 4

Delivered by Jeff Brueggeman, AT&T

Jeff Brueggeman, again, AT&T. A couple of comments about the workshop readings.

One pointed I wanted to mention is that there are also positive incentives that have been created for workshop organizers. One is being identified as a feeder workshop. I think the other can be looking at time slots. I would say probably morecomfortable focusing on how to reward the good workshops and make sure that they get the preferred good treatment rather than judging those and getting into the concerns that others have expressed.

And, again, I also agree with the points that have been made that focusing on the diversity and the participation is a safer area to be judging on as opposed to specific content or the perceived value of the workshop. Thank you.

Intervention 5

Delivered by Marilyn Cade, mCADE LLC

I welcome the opportunity to note on the amount of workshops with appreciation some of the earlier comments have been made. I am not a MAG member and I do notice that the MAG members, both old and new, have been very active today and I look forward to hearing more from them tomorrow. But as a non-MAG member, i would like to take this opportunity to encourage others who aren’t MAG members to look at the next 30 minutes as also an opportunity to provide more feedback on this particular topic.

My thought about this is we will have a number of newcomers to the IGF in Azerbaijan as we have at all of the IGFs. And we’ve been talking about the importance of making workshops interactive and participatory.

I act as the chief catalyst of the IGF USA. And our workshops range from 120 people to 90 people to 15 people on purpose because 15 people can be very, very interactive. So the number, I would say, should be guided by as much as we can assess, not just trying to fill a room but by — for a workshop but by trying to ensure that the format and the interaction around — and the subject match each other.

Secondly, I will note again that actually once we add in open forums, I’m sure there will be some very interesting open forums that will be added by governments and IGOs, etc. I’m not so sure we can have all of the workshops, and we can’t predict right now how many open forum applications we may get or submissions or nominations.

So i will wrap up by saying at each of the meetings, i speak in support of having as many sessions as possible to enable as many participants as possible and as much diversity. Thank you.