<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
The meeting website for the Best Bits João Pessoa meeting has just
been updated with a short report of the meeting (which is also
copied below), and all of the presentations that I received from
participants. For those presenters who didn't give me their slides,
please send them to me and I'll add them. You can access these from
the Documents tab of the meeting website which is here:<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2015/">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2015/">http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2015/</a>.</a><br>
<br>
The photos from the meeting have also been uploaded to our Flickr
account which you can access at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/105891848@N03/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/105891848@N03/</a>.
The photos are not tagged with names, and I have checked that nobody
is featured in photos who asked not to be uploaded online, but if
you find yourself in a photo and want to be removed, please let me
know.<br>
<br>
Additionally since we didn't have time to rate the ideas that were
generated on the Idea Rating Sheets in the penultimate session, I
have uploaded them to an online poll which is linked from the
Outcomes tab of the website. I will send a separate message with
more information about this shortly.<br>
<br>
I will also shortly send a separate message about taking forward the
work on multi-stakeholder criteria, as discussed in the morning of
our meeting.<br>
<br>
The brief report of the meeting follows:<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li> <b>Policy slam and introductions</b><br>
Participants introduced themselves and briefly explained the
issues that they are working on, to enable informal connections
and collaborations to be made.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li><b>Criteria of meaningful stakeholder inclusion in Internet
governance</b><br>
Two papers on the topic of the delicate balance between
multi-stakeholder processes and democratic legitimacy was
presented, and there was a general agreement that interested
Best Bits members could form a working group to promote a series
of proposed criteria to differentiate between multi-stakeholder
processes that are inclusive and democratic, from those that are
not.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li><b>WSIS+10 update</b><br>
This session explained the importance of the WSIS+10 process, as
the highest level process in which Interent governance
principles are being expressed. There was some discussion about
the level of ambition in the output document, and the means by
which civil society can still participate. Interested
participants were invited to a longer session that was to be
held on the following day as an IGF pre-event. <br>
<br>
</li>
<li><b>Overview of active global venues discussing Internet public
policy issues</b><br>
Following an introductory overview with a mapping of Internet
governance institutions, a series of informative presentations
were given that zoomed in on a number of these key
institutions. These included Internet native institutions such
as ICANN, IETF and ISOC, UN bodies such as the General Assembly,
CSTD, Human Rights Council and ITU, other intergovernmental
bodies such as the Freedom Online Coalition and London Process,
and specialised bodies such as WIPO, the WTO and trade
negotiations such as TTP, TTIP and TISA.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li><b>Catalyzing reform of trade negotiation processes</b><br>
The next session which followed on from these presentations,
although cut short for lack of time, was to have been an
exercise that would utilize our shared knowledge about various
institutions in the Internet governance regime to identify
possible strategies for reclaiming Internet-related policy
issues from the closed, secretive trade agreements in which
those issues have recently been being decided. This exercise
will be continued online.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li><b>Best Bits way forward</b><br>
The results of a survey of Best Bits participants was presented
and discussed. There was a clear consensus that Best Bits did
continue to have value, although it was identified that having a
large steering committee had not been helpful and was not
presently sustainable. There was agreement to have a smaller
group of volunteer coordinators that could be more
action-oriented. One of its main responsibilities would be to
organise the annual meeting based on 2-3 targets per meeting,
perhaps decided by vote of participants. The existing steering
committee was asked to take responsibility for proposing a
suitable group of volunteer coordinators going forward.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt">https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt</a>
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en">https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en</a></pre>
</body>
</html>