From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 5 01:27:11 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:27:11 +0800 Subject: Best Bits venue announced! Message-ID: <5046E2AF.6010200@ciroap.org> Hello all, A short note with some more progress on Best Bits (http://igf-online.net/bestbits). The venue for the meeting will be the *Days Hotel*: http://www.dayshotelbaku.com/. Now that we know this, it means that the meeting can be more broadly advertised, so please feel free to send the above link through your networks, particularly amongst those who plan to attend the IGF (provided that they are self-funded for travel and accommodation). Individuals for whom travel funding is available are being contacted directly. So far, only four recipients have been shortlisted, all from developing countries. We hope that more support will be available in due course, but at this stage you are advised to make your own arrangements if you can. Thanks again to Google for their support. I am also putting my money where my mouth is and plan to support up to an additional three participants through Consumers International. Will your organisation do the same? If you are not a recipient of assistance, you can still benefit from our special rate at the Days Hotel, which is EUR80 for single occupancy, or EUR90 for twin share. The Days Hotel offers a free shuttle from the airport, separate from the IGF shuttles which won't start until later. *Please reply privately**if you want to reserve a room* at the Days Hotel at your own cost - and for which nights. Please also indicate whether you would be *willing to twin-share your room* with someone else of the same gender who needs assistance with their accommodation. Finally, for those who have not yet done so, please check your name on the Best Bits pad at http://igf-online.net/bestbits to make sure that it accurately reflects your status - both in the Participants section, and in the Schedule. Whilst not having your name in the schedule doesn't mean you can't present, it would be helpful to know who plans to do so. Also please remember that there are three tracks of preparation for the meeting: * Bill Drake is coordinating preparation of a draft civil society statement to WCIT to be finalised at the meeting. Please contact him if you wish to participate. * Wolfgang Kleinwächter is similarly coordinating preparation of a civil society declaration of Internet governance principles for the IGF, to be finalised at the meeting. * Andrew Puddephatt is compiling a set of briefing papers to be distributed ahead of the meeting to facilitate knowledge sharing on topics to be discussed there. Please send your contribution to him, or reply to this list with ideas of topics on which you would like to contribute. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 10 07:11:15 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:41:15 +0530 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <60B8A74A-315E-4287-8AC5-D921885264FF@ciroap.org> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <60B8A74A-315E-4287-8AC5-D921885264FF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <504DCAD3.1080200@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 September 2012 03:27 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 09/09/2012, at 10:22 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> snip > > As I understand, Wolfgang proposes that we could use the language that > he and some others of you were already involved with drafting at the > Council of Europe as a starting point (scroll down): > > https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773 > The question I asked was; whats wrong with the 10 Internet rights and principles developed by the civil society dominated IRP group over many iterations over 2 years, or its more elaborate full charter. Why not use that? Why instead privilege a document from an inter-gov process that too one which has only a few governments involved? (especially when the involved people seem quite against any inter-gov process that includes all govs developing such principles :) ) parminder > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 10 08:04:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:34:30 +0530 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <20120910071756.07eb5e41@quill.bollow.ch> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <20120910071756.07eb5e41@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <504DD74E.5060404@itforchange.net> Jeremy and All I suggest that the meeting principally focusses on listening to different civil society perspectives on key IG issues and looking for areas of possible convergences and common/collaborative action in future - both the process of it (like possible common platforms) and substance (specific key issues identified at the meeting). As was the flavour of the initial concept note, trying to listen to and bridge perspectives across North and South (apologies to those who think these categories are superfluous) and across other possible divides, and seek such basic global civil society coherences of vision and possibilities of common action as do obtain in many other areas of global governance like trade, IP, climate change, development and social justice, human rights etc.... Meanwhile, recognising the urgent topicality of the WCIT issue, a subsidiary but still key focus could be to bring out some kind of common position on this matter, and strategise on how to employ it for practical results. I think attempting a process of drawing out global IG principles at the meeting may not be very fruitful. But yes, we must discuss this possibility and how to do it etc. We can have a session on the subject. my 2 cents. parminder On Monday 10 September 2012 10:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> I also think than in trying to focus just on two tracks of IG >> principles and WCIT meeting, the proposed best bits meeting is >> loosing its initial focus - on which understanding the groups >> participating/ supporting it came together. Let me quote from the >> initial concept note circulated by Jeremy >> >> "We therefore propose an inclusive gathering of key civil society >> organisations from across the world, at which they would have the >> opportunity to highlight their various initiatives, and provide the >> opportunity for mutual learning and broader engagement. The gathering >> is to be called “Best Bits” because it does not aim to present a >> single solution for ratification by the assembled groups, but rather >> to offer an open space where each group can present and advocate for >> the initiatives that they believe offer the best positive agenda for >> advancing broadly shared civil society interests in Internet >> governance." >> >> >> I think this initial focus needs to be maintained, while we must >> certainly see how much we can work towards specific outcomes. In this >> regard, I am not very sure we can achieve a statement of IG >> principles from the meeting. A possible common position on WCIT is >> however much more doable. Even such a position however should be >> first discussed and debated enough - preferably on this list, and on >> the IGC list, to get an fully informed view on what should be done >> and how. > I strongly agree. The main focus of Best Bits needs to remain on > movement-building. This must not be sacrificed for a focus on drafting > exercises! > > I am also not totally sure about the wisdom of splitting > up for two parallel streams of drafting groups. Maybe an alternative to > doing that would be to change the Sunday morning programme so that > instead of splitting up, we would have, for each of the topics that need > drafting work, an introductory explanation of the thoughts that went > into each of the zero drafts, followed by an initial group discussion, > and then just *organizing* how the drafting work will be taken forward > using internet-based collaboration during the weeks following the IGF? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Sep 10 08:13:25 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:13:25 +0200 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: My assumption looking at Jeremy's draft was that agreeing the two statements was the concrete operational focus and so suggested a way of organizing around those more intensively. If instead people prefer to spend a couple days discussing the state of activism and who's doing what where and what are the opportunities for inter-networking etc, ok….some of us have been there done that before (again, I suggest having a look at http://www.apc.org/en/node/9788/) but we can do it again. However, if that's the deal, I would agree with Parminder that trying to also work out two statements is too loaded an agenda. Which, it follows, would mean not keeping the existing schedule. One could try blending the topological discussion with one output effort, e.g. Day 1 - Saturday state of CS advocacy networks/efforts Day 2 - Sunday Discussion and drafting a statement on either WCIT or principles In which case I'd suggest choosing WCIT > principles and use the concrete case of the various advocacy initiatives that have been undertaken around WCIT as a way into the "state of" in day 1. After all, we have this situation where there've been multiple networks mobilized around WCIT but with varying levels of connection/disconnection (with the IGC mostly disconnected). Why not look at who what when why and consider both a) what could be done going forward in the month left before WCIT to force multiply and b) what larger lessons can be gleaned that could inform efforts going forward, and then let that exercise feed into a concrete effort to say something and build connections going forward in a bounded policy space? I guess my bottom line concern at this point is that various folks have lots of agendas and it might be hard to do justice to them all in two days, so i suggest picking two rather than overloading and ending up empty handed. BD On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:22 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I prefer that we keep to the existing draft schedule, although Bills suggestion of doing away with panels etc can be considered. I am also unsure about the practicality of bringing out some kind of a draft on IG principles from the meeting. I have always been a big votary of global principles for IG but the proposed exercise seems rather rushed, and in my view, may not bear the expected fruits. One would also like to know what is wrong with the principles put together by the IRP group which took about 2 years to work on. I am not in favour of any minimalistic statement that says the most banal stuff (which too however can be used for partisan purposes) because, inter alia I am against politics of minimalism. > > I also think than in trying to focus just on two tracks of IG principles and WCIT meeting, the proposed best bits meeting is loosing its initial focus - on which understanding the groups participating/ supporting it came together. Let me quote from the initial concept note circulated by Jeremy > > "We therefore propose an inclusive gathering of key civil society organisations from across the world, at which they would have the opportunity to highlight their various initiatives, and provide the opportunity for mutual learning and broader engagement. The gathering is to be called “Best Bits” because it does not aim to present a single solution for ratification by the assembled groups, but rather to offer an open space where each group can present and advocate for the initiatives that they believe offer the best positive agenda for advancing broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance." > > I think this initial focus needs to be maintained, while we must certainly see how much we can work towards specific outcomes. In this regard, I am not very sure we can achieve a statement of IG principles from the meeting. A possible common position on WCIT is however much more doable. Even such a position however should be first discussed and debated enough - preferably on this list, and on the IGC list, to get an fully informed view on what should be done and how. > > If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours talking about it? (Bill) > Firstly, I when it was first suggested I did not take this gathering to be focussed basically on specific draftings. I am a great fan of such focussed effort, but that was not how the meeting was propositioned. It was more of bringing diversity from across CS to one place and to explore what we can do from and with it as perhaps the name best bits suggests... > > Secondly, enhanced cooperation has everything to do both with any global principle making for IG and the WCIT discussions. > > parminder > > On Sunday 09 September 2012 07:11 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Jeremy >> >> Thanks for moving this forward. Your message to the governance list today prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the draft schedule, and I'm wondering if we might not want to consider others options before locking in on the present version, which is: >> >> Day 1 - Saturday >> 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review >> 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications Regulations >> 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance principles >> 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues >> >> Day 2 - Sunday >> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT >> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF >> 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft texts from morning >> 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps >> 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close >> >> Thoughts: >> >> 1. We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into break-out drafting groups and views on its utility. I'm in the camp that thinks that in a setting like this, the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits. I strongly believe it'd much better if everyone can be in on both conversations and approach all the potential outputs holistically. >> >> 2. I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic areas and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft texts. I'd rather keep the flow of discussion and thinking on each piece all together than break it. Moreover, >> >> a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours talking about it? As we all know, there is a full-day meeting organized by APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits. Enhanced cooperation will also be taken up in a main session, an Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly enough), etc. So it's not clear to me what the value added of loading this into an already heavy schedule would be. >> >> b. I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something serious, in a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG principles in the time allotted. If all we're shooting for is a page and half of high-level generalities fine, but if we're trying to actually influence governments and other stakeholders it could be more demanding. >> >> c. I wonder about the need for panels and panelists. >> >> d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of meetings (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, ministerial, etc etc) and then four long days of IGF, I would suggest trying not to make this feel like an endurance testing marathon. >> >> 3. Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an easier, more focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable approach: >> >> Day 1 - Saturday >> 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our goals regarding global IG principles >> 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise >> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF >> >> Day 2 - Sunday >> 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our goals regarding WCIT >> 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise >> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT >> >> Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's discuss and decide together? >> >> BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the respective processes, etc… >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 09:58:39 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:58:39 +0100 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <504DCAD3.1080200@itforchange.net> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <60B8A74A-315E-4287-8AC5-D921885264FF@ciroap.org> <504DCAD3.1080200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0a4401cd8f5c$8f2b5f80$ad821e80$@gmail.com> I agree… the IRP statement of principles is quite comprehensive and fully in alignment with overall civil society principles as I understand them… I also agree that there is no point in re-inventing documents/statements/declarations which already have been worked on over periods of time by multiple parties including most of those who will be involved in this meeting… Better to spend the time in setting the ground work for organizing for a broader coalition that can potentially have some influence on the various global Internet governance and related processes that are currently emerging at an accelerating rate. MG From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:11 PM To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options On Monday 10 September 2012 03:27 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 09/09/2012, at 10:22 PM, parminder wrote: snip As I understand, Wolfgang proposes that we could use the language that he and some others of you were already involved with drafting at the Council of Europe as a starting point (scroll down): https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773 The question I asked was; whats wrong with the 10 Internet rights and principles developed by the civil society dominated IRP group over many iterations over 2 years, or its more elaborate full charter. Why not use that? Why instead privilege a document from an inter-gov process that too one which has only a few governments involved? (especially when the involved people seem quite against any inter-gov process that includes all govs developing such principles :) ) parminder -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 10 14:09:33 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:09:33 +0200 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120910200933.412e4fa6@quill.bollow.ch> William Drake wrote: > One could try blending the topological discussion with one output > effort, e.g. > > Day 1 - Saturday > state of CS advocacy networks/efforts > > Day 2 - Sunday > Discussion and drafting a statement on either WCIT or principles > > In which case I'd suggest choosing WCIT > principles and use the > concrete case of the various advocacy initiatives that have been > undertaken around WCIT as a way into the "state of" in day 1. After > all, we have this situation where there've been multiple networks > mobilized around WCIT but with varying levels of > connection/disconnection (with the IGC mostly disconnected). Why not > look at who what when why and consider both a) what could be done > going forward in the month left before WCIT to force multiply and b) > what larger lessons can be gleaned that could inform efforts going > forward, and then let that exercise feed into a concrete effort to > say something and build connections going forward in a bounded policy > space? I'm not opposed to doing any of that, but if this gets as much focus as you seem to suggest, and if (as I would conjecture) the majority of potential participants does not have a strong particular interest in the chosen topic, the majority of potential participants would either not come in the first place, or go away feeling empty and unsatisfied. Greetings, Norbert From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Sep 10 19:43:13 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:43:13 +0800 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <20120910200933.412e4fa6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <20120910200933.412e4fa6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4472DAF0-69D8-404D-BC8C-3755757FAA95@ciroap.org> On 11/09/2012, at 2:09 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I'm not opposed to doing any of that, but if this gets as much focus > as you seem to suggest, and if (as I would conjecture) the majority of > potential participants does not have a strong particular interest in > the chosen topic, the majority of potential participants would either > not come in the first place, or go away feeling empty and unsatisfied. True enough. Certainly some of those invited think that the fuss over WCIT is just a beat-up, and others think that "enhanced cooperation" is code for handing the Internet over to the UN. So my opinion is that we should cover both, in order (as Norbert says) to attract and satisfy the most people, even if they are more interested in some "bits" of the agenda than others. Hopefully also they will be challenged and may even come away reassessing some of their preconceptions. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Sep 11 03:03:04 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:03:04 +0200 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <4472DAF0-69D8-404D-BC8C-3755757FAA95@ciroap.org> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <20120910200933.412e4fa6@quill.bollow.ch> <4472DAF0-69D8-404D-BC8C-3755757FAA95@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <644BEEF6-3AAA-44CF-B4B4-5CF9653AEB60@uzh.ch> Hi On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:43 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/09/2012, at 2:09 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> I'm not opposed to doing any of that, but if this gets as much focus >> as you seem to suggest, and if (as I would conjecture) the majority of >> potential participants does not have a strong particular interest in >> the chosen topic, the majority of potential participants would either >> not come in the first place, or go away feeling empty and unsatisfied. > > > True enough. Certainly some of those invited think that the fuss over WCIT is just a beat-up, I'm not familiar with the expression, but if the folks referred to believe that a global treaty negotiation among 190 countries is uninteresting or unimportant to IG, and that all the CS groups and other stakeholders around the world that are focusing on this intensively are engaged in a mass hallucination, I would certainly be interested to hear their argument! > and others think that "enhanced cooperation" is code for handing the Internet over to the UN. So my opinion is that we should cover both, in order (as Norbert says) to attract and satisfy the most people, even if they are more interested in some "bits" of the agenda than others. In which case it's hard to see how your initial proposal on drafting statements would work. > Hopefully also they will be challenged and may even come away reassessing some of their preconceptions. It seems the geography of preferences for the meeting is becoming more fluid and variable as we proceed. Since we have a couple months that's not a big problem, but maybe at this point we need tools other than a list to aggregate preferences and see what appeals most to whom? Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 06:18:54 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:18:54 +0100 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <504DD74E.5060404@itforchange.net> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <20120910071756.07eb5e41@quill.bollow.ch> <504DD74E.5060404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00e701cd9006$e79d9480$b6d8bd80$@gmail.com> Rather than starting with the inputs to the event (the agenda, the background concepts, the expectations of the participants) it might be more useful to have a clear idea (consensus?) on the desired outcome. I personally would opt for the outcome identified by Parminder below i.e. "basic global civil society coherences of vision and possibilities of common action" but go beyond that to having as an outcome not only a shared vision but at least the framework and initial commitments towards a broad coalition within civil society to move forward with some coherence and common strategy in this area (to match as Parminder goes on, similar such coalitions in other areas such as human rights and climate change… If we can agree on the desired outcome then how we best optimize the use of our time together should follow fairly straightforwardly. MG From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 1:05 PM To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options Jeremy and All I suggest that the meeting principally focusses on listening to different civil society perspectives on key IG issues and looking for areas of possible convergences and common/collaborative action in future - both the process of it (like possible common platforms) and substance (specific key issues identified at the meeting). As was the flavour of the initial concept note, trying to listen to and bridge perspectives across North and South (apologies to those who think these categories are superfluous) and across other possible divides, and seek such basic global civil society coherences of vision and possibilities of common action as do obtain in many other areas of global governance like trade, IP, climate change, development and social justice, human rights etc.... Meanwhile, recognising the urgent topicality of the WCIT issue, a subsidiary but still key focus could be to bring out some kind of common position on this matter, and strategise on how to employ it for practical results. I think attempting a process of drawing out global IG principles at the meeting may not be very fruitful. But yes, we must discuss this possibility and how to do it etc. We can have a session on the subject. my 2 cents. parminder On Monday 10 September 2012 10:47 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Parminder wrote: I also think than in trying to focus just on two tracks of IG principles and WCIT meeting, the proposed best bits meeting is loosing its initial focus - on which understanding the groups participating/ supporting it came together. Let me quote from the initial concept note circulated by Jeremy "We therefore propose an inclusive gathering of key civil society organisations from across the world, at which they would have the opportunity to highlight their various initiatives, and provide the opportunity for mutual learning and broader engagement. The gathering is to be called “Best Bits” because it does not aim to present a single solution for ratification by the assembled groups, but rather to offer an open space where each group can present and advocate for the initiatives that they believe offer the best positive agenda for advancing broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance." I think this initial focus needs to be maintained, while we must certainly see how much we can work towards specific outcomes. In this regard, I am not very sure we can achieve a statement of IG principles from the meeting. A possible common position on WCIT is however much more doable. Even such a position however should be first discussed and debated enough - preferably on this list, and on the IGC list, to get an fully informed view on what should be done and how. I strongly agree. The main focus of Best Bits needs to remain on movement-building. This must not be sacrificed for a focus on drafting exercises! I am also not totally sure about the wisdom of splitting up for two parallel streams of drafting groups. Maybe an alternative to doing that would be to change the Sunday morning programme so that instead of splitting up, we would have, for each of the topics that need drafting work, an introductory explanation of the thoughts that went into each of the zero drafts, followed by an initial group discussion, and then just *organizing* how the drafting work will be taken forward using internet-based collaboration during the weeks following the IGF? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Sep 11 22:20:37 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:20:37 +0800 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <00e701cd9006$e79d9480$b6d8bd80$@gmail.com> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <20120910071756.07eb5e41@quill.bollow.ch> <504DD74E.5060404@itforchange.net> <00e701cd9006$e79d9480$b6d8bd80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6275C032-3EC8-49F0-9D95-3F12058789F5@ciroap.org> On 11/09/2012, at 6:18 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Rather than starting with the inputs to the event (the agenda, the background concepts, the expectations of the participants) it might be more useful to have a clear idea (consensus?) on the desired outcome. > > I personally would opt for the outcome identified by Parminder below i.e. "basic global civil society coherences of vision and possibilities of common action" but go beyond that to having as an outcome not only a shared vision but at least the framework and initial commitments towards a broad coalition within civil society to move forward with some coherence and common strategy in this area (to match as Parminder goes on, similar such coalitions in other areas such as human rights and climate change… > > If we can agree on the desired outcome then how we best optimize the use of our time together should follow fairly straightforwardly. I also want to see such an outcome (and the last session in the tentative agenda provides for discussion of this), however I think we may need to explore the dynamics of working together before we can put in place such a framework for doing so on an ongoing longer-term basis. In other words, put the "running code" first. Two days of actually working together will demonstrate to those who are yet unconvinced about the merits of doing so (and to funders) some of what can be accomplished. I'm not trying to be obstinate about changes to the agenda, they are welcome and we will make changes. On the other hand I am trying to be sensitive here to those who don't want to feel like they are being pushed into something. I've had at least one phone conversation with a group that is worried we are trying to usurp existing initiatives, or at least to add an extra layer, that will tax already thinly-stretched resources. Also (separately) from someone who is worried about lack of tangible outcomes (ie. documents). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Sep 13 06:51:29 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:51:29 +0800 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <644BEEF6-3AAA-44CF-B4B4-5CF9653AEB60@uzh.ch> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> <20120910200933.412e4fa6@quill.bollow.ch> <4472DAF0-69D8-404D-BC8C-3755757FAA95@ciroap.org> <644BEEF6-3AAA-44CF-B4B4-5CF9653AEB60@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <5051BAB1.7030905@ciroap.org> On 11/09/12 15:03, William Drake wrote: > It seems the geography of preferences for the meeting is becoming more > fluid and variable as we proceed. Since we have a couple months > that's not a big problem, but maybe at this point we need tools other > than a list to aggregate preferences and see what appeals most to whom? Another good suggestion made to me off-list, which could address some of your valid points about overloading, and is really just an extension of what you've already suggested: > It seems that to the extent we're charting a path forward on IG with > basic principles for how governance should work (i.e., procedural > principles as opposed to, say, substantive internet rights-based > principles a la IRP or the Declaration or whatever), that would seem > to go hand in hand with a statement on what ITU's proper role (if any) > should be in the broader IG spectrum. Maybe we're talking about one > statement on IG that includes discussion of ITU, as our output? I agree with this person (who should identify themselves, if they like) that there is much sense in having a clear demarcation between the civil society Internet governance principles to be delivered to the IGF, and the IPR/Declaration of Internet Freedom on substantive rights. I have only one reservation. The reservation is that the civil society principles would be meant to have a longer life at the IGF than just one meeting, so if we drafted a single output document that was too specific to the WCIT, it would soon become out of date. A possible work-around would be to have a single set of principles (which would be enduring), plus a covering letter or preamble (which would contextualise the statement around WCIT). What do people think about that, as an alternative to the two separate output documents? -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Fri Sep 7 20:33:38 2012 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:33:38 -0400 Subject: New paper on ITU/WCIT cybersecurity proposals, PLUS civil society letter Message-ID: Hello all, As they are relevant to the goals of the Best Bits meeting, I wanted to let the list know that CDT posted two new items on our website today--a paper on cybersecurity proposals at the ITU, and an open letter to ITU member states. Our cybersecurity team has written a short paper on some of the more troubling cybersecurity proposals that ITU member states have made in preparation for the WCIT: https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/Cybersecurity_ITU_WCIT_Proposals.pdf. The paper is also attached. A short blog post on the subject can be found here: https://www.cdt.org/blogs/emma-llanso/0609itu-ill-suited-regulate-cybersecurity. This should be a very useful tool for folks who are attending regional pre-WCIT meetings over the next few weeks, and for anyone advocating on the issue. We'd be grateful if you'd circulate the links and the PDF to your networks - this is especially aimed at NGOs worldwide, but may have other audiences. We also have posted the open letter to ITU member states and government delegations that will attend the WCIT. Here's the link: https://www.cdt.org/letter/sign-letter-opposing-itu-authority-over-internet. The letter remains open for sign-on---send an email to signon at cdt.org with your/your organization's name as you'd like it to appear on the letter. We are updating the list of sign-ons periodically, but not constantly, so if you don't appear right away, do not panic ;) Thanks, and I hope you enjoy your weekend. Kevin PS: Apologies for any duplication of emails, for those who are on multiple lists. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cybersecurity and ITU WCIT Proposals.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 276943 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 19 09:25:47 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:25:47 +0800 Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits Message-ID: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> Hello all, We recently had a really useful discussion on the list about the agenda and outputs for Best Bits, but there was no clear consensus on the way forward. Someone suggested I put together a poll to make it easier to gauge people's preferences. So, please take a few minutes to complete the poll below, which contains just two questions regarding the agenda and outputs for Best Bits: http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=36451&newtest=Y&lang=en I will report back the results to the list. Thanks! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 09:41:21 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:41:21 -0500 Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits In-Reply-To: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I just completed the survey, and found it to be very clear and concise. I think it will be very helpful. Thanks Jeremy. I encourage everyone to complete it as soon as possible. Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 19 September 2012 08:25, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, > > We recently had a really useful discussion on the list about the agenda > and outputs for Best Bits, but there was no clear consensus on the way > forward. Someone suggested I put together a poll to make it easier to > gauge people's preferences. So, please take a few minutes to complete the > poll below, which contains just two questions regarding the agenda and > outputs for Best Bits: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=36451&newtest=Y&lang=en > > I will report back the results to the list. Thanks! > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed Sep 19 10:46:49 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:46:49 +0200 Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits In-Reply-To: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5059DAD9.401@apc.org> Thanks for the opportunity, Jeremy.. I have been wanting to send comments on the agenda.. but could not find the time. Like others I was worried that we would take on too much and not focus on a few clear outputs. I found that the questions in the survey, while clear, did not address everything in the earlier discussion.. but I am sure we can get back to gaps once you have compiled the results. Best Anriette On 19/09/2012 15:25, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Hello all, > > We recently had a really useful discussion on the list about the agenda and outputs for Best Bits, but there was no clear consensus on the way forward. Someone suggested I put together a poll to make it easier to gauge people's preferences. So, please take a few minutes to complete the poll below, which contains just two questions regarding the agenda and outputs for Best Bits: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=36451&newtest=Y&lang=en > > I will report back the results to the list. Thanks! > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From anriette at apc.org Wed Sep 19 11:01:59 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:01:59 +0200 Subject: More participants In-Reply-To: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5059DE67.7020009@apc.org> Dear Jeremy Google is providing support for a group of African CS people to go to the IGF in Baku and they will therefore be able to attend BestBits. They are: - Nnenna Nwakanma (Nigeria/Ivory Coast) - Alex Comninos (South Africa) - Olivier Sagna (Senegal) - Victor Kapiyo (Kenya) - Ashnah Kalemera or Lillian Nalwoga. (Uganda) - Mawaki Chango (Togo/Ivory Coast) From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Sep 19 20:21:56 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:21:56 +0800 Subject: More participants In-Reply-To: <5059DE67.7020009@apc.org> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <5059DE67.7020009@apc.org> Message-ID: <9EDC6911-80B9-44EC-8DB5-4588F6628D81@ciroap.org> On 19/09/2012, at 11:01 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Google is providing support for a group of African CS people to go to > the IGF in Baku and they will therefore be able to attend BestBits. > > They are: > > - Nnenna Nwakanma (Nigeria/Ivory Coast) > - Alex Comninos (South Africa) > - Olivier Sagna (Senegal) > - Victor Kapiyo (Kenya) > - Ashnah Kalemera or Lillian Nalwoga. (Uganda) > - Mawaki Chango (Togo/Ivory Coast) > > From APC staff (in addition to Mawaki) Joy Liddicoat and I will be there. Excellent! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Sep 21 00:33:55 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:33:55 +0800 Subject: Status of poll - and second round of travel support Message-ID: <505BEE33.4050908@ciroap.org> Hello all, Already, 14 people have responded to the poll in which we are seeking input about fine-tuning the agenda and output of Best Bits. If you haven't responded here is the link again: http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=36451&newtest=Y&lang=en Without wanting to give too many "spoilers", there is already a very clear consensus emerging about whether to aim for two output documents, as originally proposed, or to reduce this to one. So if you have a strong opinion on this and haven't already voiced it in the poll or on the list, now is the time. As for the agenda, there is also an overall preference emerging, but the results are less stark - some people wish to see changes, others don't. So it would be good to get a few more opinions before drawing conclusions about that question. Finally, we have been able to release a little more of our limited funding to support accommodation or travel assistance for five additional participants. They will be contacted off-list. Apologies if you still haven't been offered support. For those who have asked for their flight and accommodation to be covered, it would be helpful for us to know whether offering accommodation only would be useful. If you are in this position, and haven't yet been offered any support, please reply off-list to indicate whether the availability of accommodation for the days of the Best Bits meeting would make a difference to your attendance. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Fri Sep 21 13:57:42 2012 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:57:42 -0700 Subject: Don't Let the UN Change the Internet You Know Message-ID: Just sharing a ITU focused post we recently wrote for Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/steve-e-anderson/open-internet_b_1891178.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=444562,b=facebook - If there are other resources we should be linking to in future posts feel free to email them to me directly. best, -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca * *steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook ****The TPP's Internet trap is secretive, extreme, and it could criminalize your daily use of the Internet. Take a stand: http://StopTheTrap.net * What will online spying cost you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZILMivNgI&list=UUC-1UQ7bpqa_HpRCDfmCQUg&index=1&feature=plcp *Confidentiality Warning:** This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Sep 25 01:14:29 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:14:29 +0800 Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits In-Reply-To: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> On 19/09/12 21:25, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > We recently had a really useful discussion on the list about the > agenda and outputs for Best Bits, but there was no clear consensus on > the way forward. Someone suggested I put together a poll to make it > easier to gauge people's preferences. So, please take a few minutes > to complete the poll below, which contains just two questions > regarding the agenda and outputs for Best Bits: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=36451&newtest=Y&lang=en This has been open for a week and so by now we have a pretty good feeling for the group's opinions. Take a look at the results here: http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/statistics_user.php?sid=36451 For those too busy to check, there is a large majority in favour of continuing to aim for two separate output documents; the civil society Internet governance principles, and the joint statement to the ITU. There were two comments given, "Endorese an existing statement of IGP, with a short IGC preamble" (maybe that means "Best Bits" preamble, since we are not all IGC members), and "A proposal for a few concrete improvements to existing IG arrangements and a letter to the ITU on CS participation". Though we can continue discussion here, it seems to me that on the basis of the above, we have a rough consensus for two output documents. For the agenda, there is also a majority in favour of retaining the planned format shown at http://igf-online.net/bestbits, but about two-thirds as many people would rather have discussion and drafting on each of the two days - in which case it would make sense to do ITU on the first day, since that day is the deadline for comments to the ITU's online comment system.[0] There is not such strong support for any other changes being made. Whilst that means that most people are content with the existing agenda, amongst those who are content with it, is there anyone who would strongly object to the change that the minority are suggesting? [0] http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Sep 25 02:10:06 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:10:06 +0200 Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits In-Reply-To: <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20120925081006.18058edd@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For the agenda, there is also a majority in favour of retaining the > planned format shown at http://igf-online.net/bestbits, but about > two-thirds as many people would rather have discussion and drafting on > each of the two days - in which case it would make sense to do ITU on > the first day, since that day is the deadline for comments to the > ITU's online comment system. I'm not sure, but my understanding is that ITU will communicate a compilation of those comments to the member country representatives. If that is so, than this could be an effective way of communicating concerns to them. So there is a good reason to work on that on the first day. My concern is just that we shouldn't too much reduce the amount of time that is available for the broad range of topics besides the two focus topics. Greetings, Norbert From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Sep 25 02:20:06 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:20:06 +0800 Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits In-Reply-To: <20120925081006.18058edd@quill.bollow.ch> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> <20120925081006.18058edd@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <50614D16.1080409@ciroap.org> On 25/09/12 14:10, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I'm not sure, but my understanding is that ITU will communicate a > compilation of those comments to the member country representatives. > If that is so, than this could be an effective way of communicating > concerns to them. So there is a good reason to work on that on the > first day. My concern is just that we shouldn't too much reduce the > amount of time that is available for the broad range of topics besides > the two focus topics. Agreed, it would just be a reordering rather than a reallocation of time. And regarding the public comments to the ITU, I am rather bemused that after more than a month there are still only four of them! At least there is little danger that what we have to say at Best Bits will be drowned out. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Sep 9 09:41:57 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 15:41:57 +0200 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jeremy Thanks for moving this forward. Your message to the governance list today prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the draft schedule, and I'm wondering if we might not want to consider others options before locking in on the present version, which is: Day 1 - Saturday 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications Regulations 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance principles 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues Day 2 - Sunday 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft texts from morning 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close Thoughts: 1. We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into break-out drafting groups and views on its utility. I'm in the camp that thinks that in a setting like this, the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits. I strongly believe it'd much better if everyone can be in on both conversations and approach all the potential outputs holistically. 2. I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic areas and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft texts. I'd rather keep the flow of discussion and thinking on each piece all together than break it. Moreover, a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours talking about it? As we all know, there is a full-day meeting organized by APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits. Enhanced cooperation will also be taken up in a main session, an Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly enough), etc. So it's not clear to me what the value added of loading this into an already heavy schedule would be. b. I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something serious, in a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG principles in the time allotted. If all we're shooting for is a page and half of high-level generalities fine, but if we're trying to actually influence governments and other stakeholders it could be more demanding. c. I wonder about the need for panels and panelists. d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of meetings (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, ministerial, etc etc) and then four long days of IGF, I would suggest trying not to make this feel like an endurance testing marathon. 3. Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an easier, more focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable approach: Day 1 - Saturday 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our goals regarding global IG principles 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF Day 2 - Sunday 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our goals regarding WCIT 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's discuss and decide together? BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the respective processes, etc… Best, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Sep 25 17:42:16 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:42:16 -0400 Subject: Two-question survey on agenda and outputs for Best Bits In-Reply-To: <50614D16.1080409@ciroap.org> References: <92CE15A8-AFD9-4FBF-A9D2-F85CA227ACCC@ciroap.org> <50613DB5.5090303@ciroap.org> <20120925081006.18058edd@quill.bollow.ch> <50614D16.1080409@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, I just came back from a meeting with the ITU and got some more information about the public comment platform. The ITU will distribute the compilation of the comments to member states as background reading (not as an official document) ahead of WCIT. Any member state could propose to discuss the contributions in the formal debate, and the deadline to do so is November 6. With only four comments to date, I'm not sure that any MS would be eager to put this on the agenda, but with a strong joint statement from Best Bits, it might be an effective tool. If we choose to pursue this, we might want to start reaching out to our governments soon, given there's only a few days between the deadline for comments and the deadline for inputs on the agenda. I understand there are concerns about legitimizing the process, however I wanted to share this information with the group. Best, Deborah On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 25/09/12 14:10, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I'm not sure, but my understanding is that ITU will communicate a > compilation of those comments to the member country representatives. If > that is so, than this could be an effective way of communicating concerns > to them. So there is a good reason to work on that on the first day. My > concern is just that we shouldn't too much reduce the amount of time that > is available for the broad range of topics besides the two focus topics. > > > Agreed, it would just be a reordering rather than a reallocation of time. > And regarding the public comments to the ITU, I am rather bemused that > after more than a month there are still only four of them! At least there > is little danger that what we have to say at Best Bits will be drowned out. > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 17:56:08 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 16:56:08 -0500 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just did the IGC survey, and it brought into sharp focus the need for this point made by Bill: Sala--I would LOVE to see this addressed by the IGC as a whole. Bill said: BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the respective processes, etc… I like Bill's re-ordering of the issues, so that drafting follows directly upon discussion. Even more, I would like the point quoted above to be given high priority. Why discuss, debate and draft, if the statements are not effectively used? Cheers. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 9 September 2012 08:41, William Drake wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > Thanks for moving this forward. Your message to the governance list today > prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the draft schedule, and > I'm wondering if we might not want to consider others options before > locking in on the present version, which is: > > Day 1 - Saturday > 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review > 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications > Regulations > 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance > principles > 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public > policy issues > > Day 2 - Sunday > 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT > 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF > 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft texts > from morning > 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps > 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close > > Thoughts: > > 1. We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into break-out > drafting groups and views on its utility. I'm in the camp that thinks that > in a setting like this, the costs would significantly outweigh the > benefits. I strongly believe it'd much better if everyone can be in on > both conversations and approach all the potential outputs holistically. > > 2. I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic areas > and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft texts. I'd rather > keep the flow of discussion and thinking on each piece all together than > break it. Moreover, > > a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours > talking about it? As we all know, there is a full-day meeting organized by > APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits. Enhanced cooperation will also > be taken up in a main session, an Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly > enough), etc. So it's not clear to me what the value added of loading this > into an already heavy schedule would be. > > b. I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something serious, in > a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG principles in the time > allotted. If all we're shooting for is a page and half of high-level > generalities fine, but if we're trying to actually influence governments > and other stakeholders it could be more demanding. > > c. I wonder about the need for panels and panelists. > > d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of meetings > (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, ministerial, etc etc) and > then four long days of IGF, I would suggest trying not to make this feel > like an endurance testing marathon. > > 3. Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an easier, more > focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable approach: > > Day 1 - Saturday > 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our > goals regarding global IG principles > 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise > 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF > > Day 2 - Sunday > 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our > goals regarding WCIT > 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise > 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT > > Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's discuss and > decide together? > > BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's > supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see > "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the > respective processes, etc… > > Best, > > Bill > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 9 22:22:20 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:52:20 +0530 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> Hi All I prefer that we keep to the existing draft schedule, although Bills suggestion of doing away with panels etc can be considered. I am also unsure about the practicality of bringing out some kind of a draft on IG principles from the meeting. I have always been a big votary of global principles for IG but the proposed exercise seems rather rushed, and in my view, may not bear the expected fruits. One would also like to know what is wrong with the principles put together by the IRP group which took about 2 years to work on. I am not in favour of any minimalistic statement that says the most banal stuff (which too however can be used for partisan purposes) because, inter alia I am against politics of minimalism. I also think than in trying to focus just on two tracks of IG principles and WCIT meeting, the proposed best bits meeting is loosing its initial focus - on which understanding the groups participating/ supporting it came together. Let me quote from the initial concept note circulated by Jeremy "We therefore propose an inclusive gathering of key civil society organisations from across the world, at which they would have the opportunity to highlight their various initiatives, and provide the opportunity for mutual learning and broader engagement. The gathering is to be called “Best Bits” because it does not aim to present a single solution for ratification by the assembled groups, but rather to offer an open space where each group can present and advocate for the initiatives that they believe offer the best positive agenda for advancing broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance." I think this initial focus needs to be maintained, while we must certainly see how much we can work towards specific outcomes. In this regard, I am not very sure we can achieve a statement of IG principles from the meeting. A possible common position on WCIT is however much more doable. Even such a position however should be first discussed and debated enough - preferably on this list, and on the IGC list, to get an fully informed view on what should be done and how. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours talking about it? (Bill) Firstly, I when it was first suggested I did not take this gathering to be focussed basically on specific draftings. I am a great fan of such focussed effort, but that was not how the meeting was propositioned. It was more of bringing diversity from across CS to one place and to explore what we can do from and with it as perhaps the name best bits suggests... Secondly, enhanced cooperation has everything to do both with any global principle making for IG and the WCIT discussions. parminder On Sunday 09 September 2012 07:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > Thanks for moving this forward. Your message to the governance list > today prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the draft > schedule, and I'm wondering if we might not want to consider others > options before locking in on the present version, which is: > > Day 1 - Saturday > 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review > 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications > Regulations > 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet > governance principles > 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet > public policy issues > > Day 2 - Sunday > 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT > 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles for > the IGF > 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft > texts from morning > 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps > 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close > > Thoughts: > > 1. We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into > break-out drafting groups and views on its utility. I'm in the camp > that thinks that in a setting like this, the costs would significantly > outweigh the benefits. I strongly believe it'd much better if > everyone can be in on both conversations and approach all the > potential outputs holistically. > > 2. I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic > areas and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft texts. > I'd rather keep the flow of discussion and thinking on each piece all > together than break it. Moreover, > > a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two > hours talking about it? As we all know, there is a full-day meeting > organized by APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits. Enhanced > cooperation will also be taken up in a main session, an Euro > Commission Open Forum (oddly enough), etc. So it's not clear to me > what the value added of loading this into an already heavy schedule > would be. > > b. I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something > serious, in a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG > principles in the time allotted. If all we're shooting for is a page > and half of high-level generalities fine, but if we're trying to > actually influence governments and other stakeholders it could be more > demanding. > > c. I wonder about the need for panels and panelists. > > d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of meetings > (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, ministerial, etc etc) > and then four long days of IGF, I would suggest trying not to make > this feel like an endurance testing marathon. > > 3. Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an easier, > more focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable approach: > > Day 1 - Saturday > 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our > goals regarding global IG principles > 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise > 13:30 - 17:45Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF > > Day 2 - Sunday > 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our > goals regarding WCIT > 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise > 13:30 - 17:45Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT > > Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's discuss > and decide together? > > BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's > supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see > "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the > respective processes, etc… > > Best, > > Bill > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 20:10:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:10:56 +1200 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: - Hi thanks Ginger. There is a huge need for the entire IGC to be involved, I agree.I just sent a mail to the IGC on suggestions on improving internal coordination. Whilst there is diversity of views and all kinds of camps such as the: - anti ICANN camp - anti ITU camp - and all other anti this and anti that where people have their individual preference for selecting which organisation and which forum they will participate in. The method in which the IGC engages has to be clearly aligned to its vision and mission. I am certain that there are many CSOs that have developed positions on these key areas and the combined human resources within the IGC should not take us long to collaborate to achieve this. Areas can also be prioritised such as the policy areas directly affected by the WCIT. I feel that the IGC needs to work out how it is going to coordinate and determine specific positions on specific policy cluster/areas and to formulate clear positions. I also acknowledge that on some policy areas, these have already been formed etc. One the IGC position is formed, we can be bold about pushing this within diverse forums. The Working Groups within the IGC can develop recommendations about forms of advocacy whether they be in the form of:- (a) Statements; (b)Submissions; (c) etc We can also empower our members whoever is within the Proximity of the various Forums to present the IGC position etc. Best Regards On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I just did the IGC survey, and it brought into sharp focus the need for > this point made by Bill: Sala--I would LOVE to see this addressed by the > IGC as a whole. > > Bill said: > BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's > supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see > "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the > respective processes, etc… > > I like Bill's re-ordering of the issues, so that drafting follows directly > upon discussion. > > Even more, I would like the point quoted above to be given high priority. > Why discuss, debate and draft, if the statements are not effectively used? > > Cheers. gp > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > > On 9 September 2012 08:41, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy >> >> Thanks for moving this forward. Your message to the governance list >> today prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the draft schedule, >> and I'm wondering if we might not want to consider others options before >> locking in on the present version, which is: >> >> Day 1 - Saturday >> 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review >> 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications >> Regulations >> 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance >> principles >> 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public >> policy issues >> >> Day 2 - Sunday >> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT >> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles for the >> IGF >> 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft texts >> from morning >> 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps >> 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close >> >> Thoughts: >> >> 1. We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into break-out >> drafting groups and views on its utility. I'm in the camp that thinks that >> in a setting like this, the costs would significantly outweigh the >> benefits. I strongly believe it'd much better if everyone can be in on >> both conversations and approach all the potential outputs holistically. >> >> 2. I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic areas >> and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft texts. I'd rather >> keep the flow of discussion and thinking on each piece all together than >> break it. Moreover, >> >> a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours >> talking about it? As we all know, there is a full-day meeting organized by >> APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits. Enhanced cooperation will also >> be taken up in a main session, an Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly >> enough), etc. So it's not clear to me what the value added of loading this >> into an already heavy schedule would be. >> >> b. I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something serious, >> in a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG principles in the time >> allotted. If all we're shooting for is a page and half of high-level >> generalities fine, but if we're trying to actually influence governments >> and other stakeholders it could be more demanding. >> >> c. I wonder about the need for panels and panelists. >> >> d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of meetings >> (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, ministerial, etc etc) and >> then four long days of IGF, I would suggest trying not to make this feel >> like an endurance testing marathon. >> >> 3. Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an easier, >> more focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable approach: >> >> Day 1 - Saturday >> 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our >> goals regarding global IG principles >> 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise >> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF >> >> Day 2 - Sunday >> 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and our >> goals regarding WCIT >> 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise >> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT >> >> Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's discuss and >> decide together? >> >> BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's >> supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see >> "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the >> respective processes, etc… >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 9 22:33:36 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:03:36 +0530 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504D5180.1000806@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 September 2012 03:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I just did the IGC survey, and it brought into sharp focus the need > for this point made by Bill: Sala--I would LOVE to see this addressed > by the IGC as a whole. Hi GInger, This is the question I often posed to the IRP group - why dont we undertake advocacy with the IRP outcomes to try to have them included in some global institutional frameworks etc.... try to find avenues to institutionalise these rights and principles that we worked on. However, most key participants in that group seemed to take the view - well, we neednt do that, we should just have this doc out there, and anyone can use it as one may want to. This is a stance I could never understand, especially because I do believe in collective normativities and coding them as and when required (human rights instruments being a good example). So, yes, I agree, the outputs of the workshops should be employed effectively - not only to bring down (which may be necessary in some/many cases) but also to build. I must stress, the proposed workshop should not get derailed from its original task - which was to 'build', while it must also bring down what needs to be brought down - yes, I am talking about some problematic efforts at WCIT proceeding to contort the global and open character of the Internet. Regards, parminder > > Bill said: > BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's > supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see > "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the > respective processes, etc… > > I like Bill's re-ordering of the issues, so that drafting follows > directly upon discussion. > > Even more, I would like the point quoted above to be given high > priority. Why discuss, debate and draft, if the statements are not > effectively used? > > Cheers. gp > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *//* > > > > On 9 September 2012 08:41, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi Jeremy > > Thanks for moving this forward. Your message to the governance > list today prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the > draft schedule, and I'm wondering if we might not want to consider > others options before locking in on the present version, which is: > > Day 1 - Saturday > 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review > 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications > Regulations > 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet > governance principles > 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet > public policy issues > > Day 2 - Sunday > 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT > 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles > for the IGF > 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft > texts from morning > 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps > 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close > > Thoughts: > > 1. We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into > break-out drafting groups and views on its utility. I'm in the > camp that thinks that in a setting like this, the costs would > significantly outweigh the benefits. I strongly believe it'd much > better if everyone can be in on both conversations and approach > all the potential outputs holistically. > > 2. I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic > areas and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft > texts. I'd rather keep the flow of discussion and thinking on > each piece all together than break it. Moreover, > > a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two > hours talking about it? As we all know, there is a full-day > meeting organized by APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits. > Enhanced cooperation will also be taken up in a main session, an > Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly enough), etc. So it's not clear > to me what the value added of loading this into an already heavy > schedule would be. > > b. I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something > serious, in a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG > principles in the time allotted. If all we're shooting for is a > page and half of high-level generalities fine, but if we're trying > to actually influence governments and other stakeholders it could > be more demanding. > > c. I wonder about the need for panels and panelists. > > d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of > meetings (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, > ministerial, etc etc) and then four long days of IGF, I would > suggest trying not to make this feel like an endurance testing > marathon. > > 3. Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an > easier, more focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable > approach: > > Day 1 - Saturday > 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and > our goals regarding global IG principles > 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise > 13:30 - 17:45Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF > > Day 2 - Sunday > 09:00 - 10:45 Group review and discussion of the state of play and > our goals regarding WCIT > 11:00 - 12:00 Organization and mapping of drafting exercise > 13:30 - 17:45Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT > > Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's > discuss and decide together? > > BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's > supposed to be done with these statements. How exactly do we see > "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into > the respective processes, etc… > > Best, > > Bill > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 10 01:17:56 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:17:56 +0200 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120910071756.07eb5e41@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > I also think than in trying to focus just on two tracks of IG > principles and WCIT meeting, the proposed best bits meeting is > loosing its initial focus - on which understanding the groups > participating/ supporting it came together. Let me quote from the > initial concept note circulated by Jeremy > > "We therefore propose an inclusive gathering of key civil society > organisations from across the world, at which they would have the > opportunity to highlight their various initiatives, and provide the > opportunity for mutual learning and broader engagement. The gathering > is to be called “Best Bits” because it does not aim to present a > single solution for ratification by the assembled groups, but rather > to offer an open space where each group can present and advocate for > the initiatives that they believe offer the best positive agenda for > advancing broadly shared civil society interests in Internet > governance." > > > I think this initial focus needs to be maintained, while we must > certainly see how much we can work towards specific outcomes. In this > regard, I am not very sure we can achieve a statement of IG > principles from the meeting. A possible common position on WCIT is > however much more doable. Even such a position however should be > first discussed and debated enough - preferably on this list, and on > the IGC list, to get an fully informed view on what should be done > and how. I strongly agree. The main focus of Best Bits needs to remain on movement-building. This must not be sacrificed for a focus on drafting exercises! I am also not totally sure about the wisdom of splitting up for two parallel streams of drafting groups. Maybe an alternative to doing that would be to change the Sunday morning programme so that instead of splitting up, we would have, for each of the topics that need drafting work, an introductory explanation of the thoughts that went into each of the zero drafts, followed by an initial group discussion, and then just *organizing* how the drafting work will be taken forward using internet-based collaboration during the weeks following the IGF? Greetings, Norbert From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Sep 10 05:57:29 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:57:29 -0400 Subject: Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options In-Reply-To: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> References: <504D4EDC.5040007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <60B8A74A-315E-4287-8AC5-D921885264FF@ciroap.org> On 09/09/2012, at 10:22 PM, parminder wrote: > I prefer that we keep to the existing draft schedule, although Bills suggestion of doing away with panels etc can be considered. Sure, and in any case they won't be IGF-style panels as such, they are just people whom the moderator can call on to lead the discussion. > I am also unsure about the practicality of bringing out some kind of a draft on IG principles from the meeting. I think someone else may reply on this point, but actually the IG principles have had a long genesis. Let me quote from the closing civil society statement at last year's IGF which I delivered (full statement at http://www.igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-closing-session-statement-at-the-nairobi-igf): > One of the recent developments in Internet governance most remarked upon at this meeting has been the flourishing of statements of principles of Internet governance from various stakeholders, including governments and intergovernmental organisations. This is a welcome development, because it demonstrates that those stakeholders understand the value of soft governance of the Internet, which the IGF also exemplifies. Several of the stakeholders who have developed statements of principles have also placed them before this meeting of the IGF for discussion. This is another welcome step, because it shows their commitment to developing policy through multi-stakeholder consultation, and the IGF is the perfect place for this. > > Continuing this process, the next step that many in civil society would like to see is for the IGF to be used as a venue for each of the stakeholders to contribute these statements of principles, to a process by which we draw out common elements, and build consensus, towards the development of a multi-stakeholder framework of principles which we can all own together. If such a joint statement of principles could be produced during the current term of the IGF's mandate, this would have far more weight and legitimacy than any of the individual statements could ever hope to possess on their own. It would also establish beyond question the IGF's ability to contribute tangible and lasting outcomes for the guidance of policy makers. > > On the part of the Internet Governance Caucus, we intend to participate in the development of a set of principles for civil society, using an open and transparent process, as our input into the process of developing a common framework of principles. We hope to present this civil society statement of principles at the next meeting of the IGF and at other Internet governance meetings in the meantime. > As I understand, Wolfgang proposes that we could use the language that he and some others of you were already involved with drafting at the Council of Europe as a starting point (scroll down): https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773 -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: