[bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting

[Norbert Bollow]

+1

Greetings,
Norbert

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:18 AM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Thanks to the steering committee for this great start....
> 
> I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that
> later...
> 
> Abut day 2
> 
> I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and
> I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the
> offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU.
> 
> As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of
> this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in
> order..
> 
> Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose
> name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to
> the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not
> only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and
> articulate. 
> 
> It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations
> (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP
> proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I
> cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it.
> This is my basic proposition..
> 
> I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the
> 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet
> and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out
> with a statement about it. 
> 
> At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive
> agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think
> takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is
> not the right place for most global IG work.)
> 
> People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden
> global Internet go. And we should discuss this.
> 
> Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of
> global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the
> global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for
> trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who
> should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how?
> 
> And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how
> statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. 
> 
> That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have
> anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them?
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
> Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all,
> it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting
> in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and
> here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine
> though):
> 
> Day 1 
> 
>  
> 
> 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising,
> interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is
> working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which
> we will share soon.  The purpose of this session is to reach a
> consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to
> provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and
> become stronger and more sustainable.
> 
>  
> 
> 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation.
> As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing
> these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil
> society position about the evolution of Internet governance
> arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands.
> We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any
> changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as
> radical.  The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get
> together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for
> advocacy.  We already have a working group arguing over these issues
> (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon.
> 
>  
> 
> Day 2
> 
> 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the
> WSIS+10 review.  What is coming up?  What is our long term strategy?
> Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open
> up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders?  If
> we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we
> disengage?
> 
> 
> 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU
> discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate
> to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights
> Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet
> governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going
> forward.
> 
> There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then,
> including work on the website (so that you can actually register for
> the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it).  I'll be
> posting more about that very soon.
> 
> Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme...
>