[bestbits] Proposal on Best Bits governance

[parminder]

On Monday 02 December 2013 01:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> We are not really doing anything on anyone's behalf, just facilitating 
> the participants' independent engagement in IG processes on a 
> volunteer basis; 

Jeremy, you know this is not true and just a facile front, the 
'platform' meme, which I said at Bali could become a way of doing things 
without responsibility... and I increasingly see my prediction come true 
- important things being done with responsibility denied, in this 
manner, as you say, 'we are not doing anything on anyone's behalf'.

How can you say this. You of course are doing things on BB's behalf. The 
letter about 4 liaisons to Brazil meeting was signed on behalf of BB 
network, you are in the joint civil society coordination/ nominating 
committee on the behalf of BB network, you take decisions on what 
statement to host on the BB platform and which not on the behalf of BB 
network, you accept and implement some suggestions on this list and 
ignore others, exercising authority I understand on behalf of BB, you 
meet outside actors who recognise you as BB reps, I understand even 
funds are being sought on BB's behalf.... and there seem to be so many 
other things slated to be done in the name of BB network..

All this is normally very fine for a network to do , and to do it 
effectively, of course some kind of structure has to be evolved... But 
it does not help to keep saying we really do nothing, as a standard 
response to questions about propriety of processes, etc...


> so that's why the energy being diverted into this issue is so 
> misplaced.  Based on the procedures wiki that was launched ahead of 
> the Bali meeting (http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/), there 
> are proposals for the steering committee to be able to do various 
> things, mostly quite trivial, which you can find by just searching for 
> "steering" in that page.
>
> One of those proposals was that we would offer a service to compile 
> expressions of interest received for nominations to other groups, and 
> to post those back to the main list for approval by consensus. 

For seeking a consensus there has to be some bare minimum description of 
a process of consensus. ... I have seen  a kind of consensus declared 
when one or two people speak in favour, with more than that number 
having spoken again the process itself being totally ignored.


> But even this was received with suspicion, so we stepped away from it, 
> and meanwhile a new joint civil society group has come together to do 
> essentially the same thing (since, one way or another, it needs doing).
>
> Nonetheless, this proposed procedure (and all the others) remain up 
> for discussion.

Really! Does it remain up for discussion? I though it wasnt. I find a 
very hostile stance of concerned responsibility owners to any process 
discussion here. This is no way to conduct a process discussion. For 
instance, twice recently when I tried a discussion on process I was told 
by you things like - this is my last email on this issue, please take 
this discussion offline with you or the steering committee, which is a 
strange thing to say since I was in fact discussing the role for 
steering committee.

As I suggested already, I am done with raising process issues here, 
unless I see some real willingness among those given the responsibility 
to conduct this group to have an honest and open process related 
discussion. I would not even have  written this email but could not 
digest two clear misrepresentations in your email - that 'you do nothing 
on BB's behalf' and 'that a discussion on process is always open'.

Wishing you the  very best!

parminder


> But it makes no sense to rush this and to divert our limited, 
> volunteer energies into developing a perfect set of processes for Best 
> Bits when there are more important substantive issues to be dealing 
> with related to the Brazil meeting, enhanced cooperation process, and 
> so on.  At least, I, for one, don't have time to do both, and I know 
> which I'd rather be working on.
>
> So that's why I favour Anriette's proposal, which is more realistic 
> and achieveable, over Michael's which I feel displays a little 
> unnecessarily paranoia about the interim steering committee's powers 
> and motives.
>
> -- 
>
> *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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131202/6d2d1729/attachment.htm>