APrIGF Macao 2015 Synthesis Document
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 APrIGF Macao 2015 Synthesis Document
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 CLICK ARROW TO VIEW DRAFT
Page 2
Public Commenting on APrIGF Documents
Recent Comments on this Page
-
Winston Roberts
I agree that the APrIGF conference needs an outcomes document, to demonstrate that so much effort has been productive. This is important for the organisations which sponsor workshops and for the agencies which fund the participation of regional experts.
-
+1 jac
or APrIGF Multistakeholder Synthesis (without the word “Document”)
-
Jac sm Kee
instead of project, why not “express voices, views and thoughts…”
-
from participants at the APrIGF (as well as the broader APrIGF community through remote participation and dissemination at the mailing list)
-
Again, an update of the process would be needed:
– 1st rough draft based on workshop submissions
– 2nd iteration from comments through the online platform & public dissemination of the link etc (from dates)
– 3rd iteration from comments (platform) & (dates)
– Final version through rough consensus
Something like this? Or based on the secretariat’s excellent summation so far already in the mailing list
-
As we are renaming the document from “Outcomes document” to something else. Would be good to keep it consistent. How about “APrIGF Synthesis Document”? More accurate?
-
The background part looks good，especially the 3rd paragraph.
What’s not clear to me is the purpose of this OD? What are we going to do with it? Who will be the audience or recipients? Are we going to “released” or “submit” OD to the other international arenas? How would be the relevance of OD to the future rIGF?
The 3rd paragraph shows the unbinding nature of the OD but it did not clarify the purpose.
-
Izumi Aizu
How about substituting the phrase:
“The Outcomes Document aims to document” with “The Outcomes Document aims to identify” to avoid duplication of using “document”.
nica
Recent Comments in this Document
-
Yien Chyn Tan
Might be good to spell out GDPR (seems like it wasn’t mentioned before in earlier paragraphs).
-
Seems like only paragraph 131 mentions private sector. But all paragraphs after under this main header did not explicitly mention about private sector’s role. Proposing perhaps to update overall header for paragrahs 131-146
-
See comments in paragraph 112, as it relates to 115. Both parts from 112 and 115 might fit better under this subheader.
-
This seems to be related to paragraph 104 on elections, might be worth to have content shifted along paragraph 104, or integrate content.
-
Proposing to move 2nd half of this paragraph starting “Thus, a regional approach is necessary…” to after paragraph 115. That might flow better in terms of discussing multistakeholder regional collaboration.
-
Perhaps this can be the starting paragraph for AI section, with header “Public perception and AI accountability”; and move paragraph 103 after this paragraph, with “Bias and fairness in AI systems” as a sub topic under the broader AI topic.
-
Perhaps it might be good to have AI parts in paragraph 100 move to this section instead.
-
Proposing to have clarity on what monopolies mean here. The current sentence might be implied as the monopolies are “the Internet, the dotcom boom, or modern social media generation”.
-
Parts on Samoa seem duplicative as paragraph 79.
How about substituting the phrase:
“The Outcomes Document aims to document” with “The Outcomes Document aims to identify” to avoid duplication of using “document”.
The background part looks good，especially the 3rd paragraph.
What’s not clear to me is the purpose of this OD? What are we going to do with it? Who will be the audience or recipients? Are we going to “released” or “submit” OD to the other international arenas? How would be the relevance of OD to the future rIGF?
The 3rd paragraph shows the unbinding nature of the OD but it did not clarify the purpose.
As we are renaming the document from “Outcomes document” to something else. Would be good to keep it consistent. How about “APrIGF Synthesis Document”? More accurate?
+1 jac
or APrIGF Multistakeholder Synthesis (without the word “Document”)
Again, an update of the process would be needed:
– 1st rough draft based on workshop submissions
– 2nd iteration from comments through the online platform & public dissemination of the link etc (from dates)
– 3rd iteration from comments (platform) & (dates)
– Final version through rough consensus
Something like this? Or based on the secretariat’s excellent summation so far already in the mailing list
from participants at the APrIGF (as well as the broader APrIGF community through remote participation and dissemination at the mailing list)
instead of project, why not “express voices, views and thoughts…”
I agree that the APrIGF conference needs an outcomes document, to demonstrate that so much effort has been productive. This is important for the organisations which sponsor workshops and for the agencies which fund the participation of regional experts.