Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options

[William Drake]

My assumption looking at Jeremy's draft was that agreeing the two statements was the concrete operational focus and so suggested a way of organizing around those more intensively.  If instead people prefer to spend a couple days discussing the state of activism and who's doing what where and what are the opportunities for inter-networking etc, ok….some of us have been there done that before (again, I suggest having a look at http://www.apc.org/en/node/9788/) but we can do it again.  However, if that's the deal, I would agree with Parminder that trying to also work out two statements is too loaded an agenda.   Which, it follows, would mean not keeping the existing schedule.

One could try blending the topological discussion with one output effort, e.g.

Day 1 - Saturday
state of CS advocacy networks/efforts

Day 2 - Sunday
Discussion and drafting a statement on either WCIT or principles

In which case I'd suggest choosing WCIT > principles and use the concrete case of the various advocacy initiatives that have been undertaken around WCIT as a way into the "state of" in day 1.  After all, we have this situation where there've been multiple networks mobilized around WCIT but with varying levels of connection/disconnection (with the IGC mostly disconnected).  Why not look at who what when why and consider both a) what could be done going forward in the month left before WCIT to force multiply and b) what larger lessons can be gleaned that could inform efforts going forward, and then let that exercise feed into a concrete effort to say something and build connections going forward in a bounded policy space?

I guess my bottom line concern at this point is that various folks have lots of agendas and it might be hard to do justice to them all in two days, so i suggest picking two rather than overloading and ending up empty handed.

BD

On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:22 AM, parminder wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> I prefer that we keep to the existing draft schedule, although Bills suggestion of doing away with panels etc can be considered. I am also unsure about the practicality of bringing out some kind of a draft on IG principles from the meeting. I have always been a big votary of global principles for IG but the proposed exercise seems rather rushed, and in my view, may not bear the expected fruits. One would also like to know what is wrong with the principles put together by the IRP group which took about 2 years to work on. I am not in favour of any minimalistic statement that says the most banal stuff (which too however can be used for partisan purposes) because, inter alia I am against politics of minimalism. 
> 
> I also think than in trying to focus just on two tracks of IG principles and WCIT meeting, the proposed best bits meeting is loosing its initial focus - on which understanding the groups participating/ supporting it came together. Let me quote from the initial concept note circulated by Jeremy
> 
> "We therefore propose an inclusive gathering of key civil society organisations from across the world, at which they would have the opportunity to highlight their various initiatives, and provide the opportunity for mutual learning and broader engagement. The gathering is to be called “Best Bits” because it does not aim to present a single solution for ratification by the assembled groups, but rather to offer an open space where each group can present and advocate for the initiatives that they believe offer the best positive agenda for advancing broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance."
> 
> I think this initial focus needs to be maintained, while we must certainly see how much we can work towards specific outcomes. In this regard, I am not very sure we can achieve a statement of IG principles from the meeting. A possible common position on WCIT is however much more doable. Even such a position however should be first discussed and debated enough - preferably on this list, and on the IGC list, to get an fully informed view on what should be done and how.  
> 
>  If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours talking about it?  (Bill)
> Firstly, I when it was first suggested I did not take this gathering to be focussed basically on specific draftings. I am a great fan of such focussed effort, but that was not how the meeting was propositioned. It was more of bringing diversity from across CS to one place and to explore what we can do from and with it as perhaps the name best bits suggests...
> 
> Secondly, enhanced cooperation has everything to do both with any global principle making for IG and the WCIT discussions. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> On Sunday 09 September 2012 07:11 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Jeremy
>> 
>> Thanks for moving this forward.  Your message to the governance list today prompted me to have a non-cursory second look at the draft schedule, and I'm wondering if we might not want to consider others options before locking in on the present version, which is:
>> 
>> Day 1 - Saturday
>> 09:00 - 10:45 - Internet governance history and review
>> 11:00 - 12:45 - The ITU and the International Telecommunications Regulations
>> 14:00 - 15:45 - Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance principles
>> 16:00 - 17:45 - Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues
>> 
>> Day 2 - Sunday
>> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 1) - Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT
>> 09:00 - 12:45 (stream 2) - Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF
>> 14:00 - 15:00 - Streams return together, present and discuss draft texts from morning
>> 15:15 - 17:00 - Next steps
>> 17:00 - 17:30 - Press conference and close
>> 
>> Thoughts:
>> 
>> 1.  We all have lots of experience with splitting meetings into break-out drafting groups and views on its utility.  I'm in the camp that thinks that in a setting like this, the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits.  I strongly believe it'd much better if everyone can be in on both conversations and approach all the potential outputs holistically.  
>> 
>> 2.  I don't think it's optimal to devote day 1 to three big topic areas and then return to two of them on day 2 and try to draft texts.  I'd rather keep the flow of discussion and thinking on each piece all together than break it.  Moreover,
>> 
>>   a. If we're not drafting on enhanced cooperation, why spend two hours talking about it?  As we all know, there is a full-day meeting organized by APC, ISOC and ICC the day after Best Bits.  Enhanced cooperation will also be taken up in a main session, an Euro Commission Open Forum (oddly enough), etc.  So it's not clear to me what the value added of loading this into an already heavy schedule would be.  
>> 
>>   b.  I wonder about the efficacy of trying to write something serious, in a group context, from a full stop, on WCIT and IG principles in the time allotted.  If all we're shooting for is a page and half of high-level generalities fine, but if we're trying to actually influence governments and other stakeholders it could be more demanding.  
>> 
>>   c.  I wonder about the need for panels and panelists.  
>> 
>>   d. For a two-day meeting that comes before another day of meetings (enhanced cooperation, GigaNet symposium, ISOC, ministerial, etc etc) and then four long days of IGF, I would suggest trying not to make this feel like an endurance testing marathon.  
>> 
>> 3.  Hence, I would like to suggest what I believe would be an easier, more focused, and ultimately more productive and enjoyable approach:
>> 
>> Day 1 - Saturday
>> 09:00 - 10:45   Group review and discussion of the state of play and our goals regarding global IG principles  
>> 11:00 - 12:00   Organization and mapping of drafting exercise
>> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF
>> 
>> Day 2 - Sunday
>> 09:00 - 10:45   Group review and discussion of the state of play and our goals regarding WCIT
>> 11:00 - 12:00   Organization and mapping of drafting exercise
>> 13:30 - 17:45 Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT 
>> 
>> Just my preference…others may have others, so how about let's discuss and decide together?
>> 
>> BTW, perhaps in a separate thread, we might want to discuss what's supposed to be done with these statements.  How exactly do we see "principles for the IGF" and a "statement to WCIT" feeding into the respective processes, etc…
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> ***************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ****************************************************
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20120910/4ef0a8bb/attachment.htm>