[bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting

[matthew shears]

Jeremy, all

Many thanks for this and organizing the meeting.

Unless I've missed it in the mail trail, I would like to suggest an 
additional output of the Bestbits meeting and that would be a statement 
to the IGF, MAG, UNDESA, etc., that could be released on the second day 
of Bestbits about the imperative of addressing funding consistency and 
transparency and other issues related to the future of the IGF.

I agree that the the ITU and WSIS+10 should be a combined session. 
Certainly CDT has been fully engaged on ITU matters over the past 12 
months+ but it is now time to step back and assess where we collectively 
are vis-a-vis the entirety of the governance/WSIS space.  We have been 
thwarted on some fronts and had successes on others but it is time 
perhaps to think more strategically about how we promote 
multistakeholderism/governance without using up our limited resources 
through attrition.  There is a trajectory through WTDC/WSIS HLM and 
Plenipot, and we should consider where and how we can engage most 
effectively and efficiently.

Matthew

On 13/08/2013 09:54, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Thanks for the good suggestions, including a couple that have come 
> off-list.
>
> To respond to a couple of those, it was suggested that we could have 
> parallel sessions.  This was how we originally had last year's draft 
> programme too, but it turned out not to be manageable because some 
> people strongly wanted to contribute to both streams.  So I feel that 
> although it's an easy solution, it's perhaps not the best one.
>
> The other question is whether ITU be featured or whether it be part of 
> a broader treatment of the WSIS+10 review process, and that 
> surveillance should become more of a headline topic.  As the latest 
> mail from Joana indicates, there are still issues for us to address at 
> the ITU so I don't think that removing it from the agenda is 
> necessary, nor that this has been suggested.
>
> So I think that the comments can be taken on board by moving 
> surveillance into the prime time slot (morning of the second day), and 
> broadening the topic of the ITU session to include the WSIS+10 review 
> process and civil society's participation in that.  For example, the 
> supposed Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP) for WSIS+10 has 
> been anything but, so far.
>
> Can we proceed along those lines?  The other question is, are there 
> any outputs that we want to produce from these two sessions?  From the 
> first day's session we have some pretty clear deliverables to work on 
> (even though there is much work yet to do towards them), but what 
> about the surveillance and ITU/WSIS+10 sessions?
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130813/5e3e3bb0/attachment.htm>