<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session
summary, that would be great:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms</a><br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Joy <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/11/2013 11:24 p.m., parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5278C766.4070509@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>