<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Hi Joy<br>
<br>
I refer to interactions during the last plenary session on
processes. It wasnt in the small groups sessions. The exchange
about the need for clearer/ formal processes versus we should not
become too formal and inflexible continued over quite some time,
involving many interventions. <br>
<br>
As for the details you ask for - it begun I think with a demand
that those closely associated with BB processes be upfront about
their organisational details, funding support etc so that members
knew clearly who is who and so on. To this was added request to be
more clear about goals of the coalition (included if needed
through a charter) and the need to actively reach out to bring in
those who werent here... It was proposed that BB works as a
membership driven organisation, with members driven processes/
decisions. There was demands for greaer clarity about how
decisions are made and who made them.... <br>
<br>
Regards, parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 04 November 2013 02:53 AM,
joy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5276BECA.5070609@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Parminder - i need a clarification please... In relation to the
Best Bits quality mark idea, you wrote:<br>
{snip}<br>
"when some process issues were raised there were many people
labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism"<br>
I do not recall this from the large group discussion - but perhaps
it was in the small groups or was it missed in the meeting notes?
To assist, can you please be more specific about the actual
concerns that were raised and those labelling them in this way? It
is difficult to assess your comments in detail without the
particulars .<br>
thanks<br>
Joy <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/2013 7:52 p.m., parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5275F29B.6030400@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02
AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div>On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:joy@apc.org">joy@apc.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><snip></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul class="MailOutline">
<li>A <b>fluid working group</b> (to use one of our new
catchphrases) could work online to distill it down into
a shorter statement of principles, and get underway on
that now with the aim of making at least some further
progress by the time of our workshop on Thursday. Would
you be willing to be a focal point for the fluid working
group?</li>
<li>For the longer-term, we could try to develop these
principles into a standard of our own, that we could
apply to various Internet governance institutions.
During a workshop yesterday on metrics of
multi-stakeholderism, I first raised this idea as a kind
of "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes. As
many people have noted during this IGF already,
everything from the IETF to ICANN to the IGF is called a
"multi-stakeholder process", yet they are so very
different. A <b>Best Bits "quality label" for
multi-stakeholder processes</b> could help to provide
a more useful benchmark for these processes than the
WSIS process criteria alone.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would
itself first have to follow very high quality processes. However
at the f2f meeting when some process issues were raised there
were many people labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and
formalism. So, not sure how we would resolve the apparent
contradiction here.....<br>
<br>
I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles,
especially in very political processes like the kind we all are
engaged in, they need to be held to very high levels of
openness, transparency, accountability and so on, and these
things should not be dismissed as unneeded formalism. Democratic
public life has been carefully imbued with a lot of such
'formalism' over the centuries precisely because of this reason.
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07009C91-B39D-4C55-932E-1E039818A3BB@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both
objectives in turn. What do people think?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div apple-content-edited="true">-- <br>
Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers<br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>
<br>
Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
knowledge hub |<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-</a>media/resource-zone<br>
<br>
@Consumers_Int | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this
email unless necessary.<br>
<br>
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end.
For instructions, see <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jere.my/l/8m">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>