[bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

genekimmelman at gmail.com genekimmelman at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 22:19:51 EST 2013


Rafik, sorry if my message came across as aggressive,  it was not meant that way. I won't debate further either, you raise important points that deserve consideration.  I believe there have been some interesting process proposals put on the table to work out.  My tone was only meant to express my sense that we need to reach a point of resolution so we can focus adequate attention to substantive policy concerns.  And I must also admit that as a 30 year veteran of policy strategy,  I have never placed transparency as a goal equal to social equity, economic justice,  or the protection of fundamental human rights. Maybe  others in CS have a different hierarchy of concerns and therefore are more focused on how internal process rules are consistent with external demands of policymakers.  I'm just explaining that I personally think internal legitimacy of our group among those who opt in requires a sense of trust that may be quite different from transparency rules. And I look forward to working out how we can generate and maintain that trust as we actively engage in our work. 

-------- Original message --------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
Date: 12/02/2013  9:49 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: genekimmelman at gmail.com 
Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>,Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT 
 
Hi Gene,

thanks for the reply. I feel some aggressive tone there with kind of mix of "shut-up" , "take it or leave it" and "if you don't like, you can quit", at least that is my interpretation . For sure that is not the best way to engage and convince people .

If I recall correctly the interim steering committee started this summer (july) and that is before the brazil meeting announcement in October. I guess that any interim steering committee has a first goal to propose a long-term setting or process and moving from the transitional phase. we can every time postpone that arguing we have new challenges and issues to handle, but till when? it looks like technical debt in the software development world.

There are concerns and I don't share all of them, but dismissing is not the answer .Why? because for every decision, move , they will pop-up again over again, why not to respond them now ?

I can live with Anriette proposal and find it acceptable while I found that term is long and can be shorten. 

I feel that people are in defensive mode and react to critics. this discussion is not about individuals at all.

We as individuals involved in CS world in different manners and fora, we tend to lecture others about accountability, transparency, sometimes in the borderline of patronizing, shouldn't we live to those principles first?

I am not going further in this discussion since I think I expressed what I have to say already and not willing to disturb the social peace.

Best,

Rafik


2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
To be more specific,  maybe those with lingering concerns need to decide whether they want to participate on the best bits platform or not. You decide.  If you think you can make it work better,  please offer ideas like Anriette, Michael and others have done. I believe we decided in Bali on an approach and I endorse Anriette's path toward formalizing this. And I suggest we wrap up this conversation for now and move on to substance.  Otherwise we delegitimze the broad support people worked towards over two days in Bali and make it more difficult to prepare for Brazil. 



-------- Original message --------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 
Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: genekimmelman at gmail.com 
Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>,Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT 


every response with such reluctance and  such kind of arguments raise more questions than giving answers or appeasing those with concerns.
as reminder BestBits initiative started in august 2012 when people were talking about WCIT and prepared first meeting IGF Baku, we will be in 2014 in few weeks and we are still with temporary settings.

Rafik

2013/12/2 genekimmelman at gmail.com <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Internal accountability to a group with shared goals may differ from societal/global policy goals that the group will agree to if all others with power agree as well.  Best not to confuse these.  We should be accountable but not create internal processes that make it impossible to coordinate policy actions. 



-------- Original message --------
From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> 
Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: Parminder Singh <parminder at itforchange.net> 
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT 


+1! 

On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:23 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Civil society must always remain very vary of thinking of themselves as somehow so morally superior that they are exempt from normal accountability and transparency requirements



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131202/cc72ada0/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list