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

Tue Dec 3 10:04:04 EST 2013

I agree. I do believe policy makers respond better when we have clear
content proposals to make. For instance, the APC letter went up the latter
really fast in the Brazilian government....

And I do feel we are in a crucial moment to develop such content focus
proposals. I actually feel we are getting late. The sooner we can send in
constructive proposals - based on the 3 items Andrew have sent - the
better.

I also do feel the tension in this list has been too high sometimes, and I
do wish people read emails as per their words...

Finally, Rafik, is there any news from your conversations at ICANN that you
may have accessed and could share with us due to current mandate?

C

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com <
genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131203/960db5df/attachment.htm>