<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
The final version of the paper "Criteria of Meaningful Stakeholder
Inclusion in Internet Governance" that I presented at the 2015 Best
Bits meeting and at the GigaNet meeting the following day has just
been published in Internet Policy Review here:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/criteria-meaningful-stakeholder-inclusion-internet-governance">http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/criteria-meaningful-stakeholder-inclusion-internet-governance</a><br>
<br>
Many thanks to those who gave feedback on the draft, including the
reviewers at IPR. At the Best Bits meeting there was also interest
expressed in collaborating on some kind of outreach or other
activities around the criteria, which could help us in advocating
for the kind of multi-stakeholder processes we want, and against
those phony kinds that we don't want. This was my intent in writing
the piece to begin with, so I was glad that others felt the same.<br>
<br>
For those who wish to collaborate on this, please contact me
(off-list is fine), and I can start what we used to call a "fluid
working group" on this topic. The practical next steps are entirely
up for discussion, but might include any of the following (just
brainstorming here!):<br>
<ul>
<li>A Best Bits sign-on statement based loosely on the article.</li>
<li>A simplified one-pager based loosely on the article (similarly
to how a short set of "10 Punchy Principles" were distilled from
the Internet Rights and Principles Charter).<br>
</li>
<li>An open letter (or a set of these) to governments or
institutions that we feel are misusing the term
"multi-stakeholder" to imply that they are more open to
meaningful stakeholder participation than they really are.</li>
<li>A meeting with such governments or institutions to discuss
possible reforms.</li>
<li>Development of a logo, seal, award or certification for
processes or institutions that we think come up to a high
standard.</li>
<li>A joint blog where we analyze particular processes or
institutions, one at a time, to assess how well they measure up
to the criteria.</li>
<li>Formation of an IGF Dynamic Coalition or an activity under the
auspices of the NETmundial Initiative to execute para 72(i) of
the Tunis Agenda ("assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment
of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes").<br>
</li>
<li>Any other good ideas that any of you might come up with.<br>
</li>
</ul>
Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you soon if you are
interested in collaborating. Please also share the article widely
if you'd like to.<br>
<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>