<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 06 November 2013 02:18 AM,
joy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5279599B.6020402@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session
summary, that would be great:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Joy, thanks for the link. However, As I mention below the
discussions that I describe took place *not* in the multistakeholder
session we did together on the first day, but in the last session on
the second day on BB related process issues, held together by Jeremy
and Anja...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5279599B.6020402@apc.org" type="cite"> 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>