[bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
Andrew Puddephatt
Andrew at gp-digital.org
Tue Dec 3 10:21:57 EST 2013
This is where we are
Jeremy has volunteered to co-ordinate Stream 1, Matthew Stream 2 and I will start with Stream 3.
The survey will close of December 10th - I've had six responses (thanks everyone) but the more the merrier. I'd hope to analyse them by Dec 16 and be able to send round first thoughts on how to structure work. I think we should aim to move very quickly and encourage people to submit their ideas to CGI
Volunteers so far are:
Stream 1
Stream 2
Stream 3
Recommendation on process issues for the conference (remote participation, stakeholder representation and selection)
Substantive input on universal Internet principles (based on Marco Civil and/or other existing principles documents).
Substantive input on an institutional framework for multistakeholder Internet governance including:
1. Internationalisation of ICANN
2.International public policy issues (based on existing proposals put before the WGEC and the recommendations of the Correspondence Group).
Andrew
Submission on the first high level principle dealing with free expression, privacy etc. > asserting ICCPR standards on free expression.
Submission on reforming internet governance that keep the dispersed structure and multi-stakeholder participation (which is likely to include ideas on internationalising ICANN and strengthening the IGF)
Matthew
x
x
Nnenna
x
Claudio
x - contribute, not lead
Valeria/ APC
x - contribute
x - contribute
Marianne/ IRP
x
Jeanette
x - listen and comment
Anriette APC
x
x
x
Anja
x
x
Joana
x
x
x
M. Gurstein
x
x
Marilia/ Joana
3.1/3.2
Rafik
x
x
Joy
x
x
Cynthia
x
Avri
x
Pranesh
x
x
Carolina
x
x
x
Misha
x
Deborah/Access
x
x
Poncelet
x
x
Bertrand
x
Parminder
x
x
x
Matthias will offer international legal expertise on all issues
x
x
x
Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini
Sent: 03 December 2013 15:04
To: Gene Kimmleman (external)
Cc: Rafik Dammak; William Drake; parminder; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT
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<mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com> <genekimmelman at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Date: 12/02/2013 9:49 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: genekimmelman at gmail.com<mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>,Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto: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<mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com> <genekimmelman at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Date: 12/02/2013 8:22 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: genekimmelman at gmail.com<mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>,Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto: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<mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com> <genekimmelman at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
Date: 12/02/2013 3:52 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Parminder Singh <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> Best Bits" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131203/3e478935/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list