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

Tue Dec 3 17:17:02 EST 2013

Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Carolina
>
> 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?
>>
>> I am not sure about this request, what news are you asking about?
>
> Rafik
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 
*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/fc3183b2/attachment.htm>