<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
great - so we can say the notes of the first session are final. <br>
Cheers<br>
Joy<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/11/2013 6:53 p.m., parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:528313DF.2060007@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>