[bestbits] Report on Best Bits meeting at UNESCO WSIS plus 10 Paris February 2013

[Josh Levy]

Hi Parminder and all -

Free Press, the World Wide Web Foundation and a few other groups (including Andrew and Global Partners) have been discussing this "Web We Want" idea for the last couple of months, and there's been a lot of enthusiasm for it. We absolutely see it as complementary to the good work being undertaken by the groups on these and other lists, as well as the Best Bits effort to forge consensus around policy objectives.

Right now, the vision of the Web We Want is to generate popular support for the many policy objectives we are all working toward, to link these objectives to a broader vision for human rights, and to direct resources to local fights in order to support the broad agenda of achieving an open Internet for all, without censorship or surveillance.

We are very much in the beginning stages of piecing this project together, and we would like to loop in anyone and everyone who's interested. Please let me know off-list if you'd like to set up a time to discuss this in more depth.

Thanks,
Josh Levy

On Mar 1, 2013, at 4:12 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

Andrew/ All

The meeting seems to have done really useful work. Very encouraging.

Sorry, I missed it because my colleague was speaking at the closing ceremony and I had to be there for the sake organisational solidarity.

Can someone point to where more stuff about the 'web we want' initiative can be found. It is an excellent way to go for developing a positive agenda. Maybe, the 'Internet we want' would a better name for us, and also we cna make it an original BestBits initiative.

About Jeremy's paper, as I wrote to him, I very much agree with his framing of the problem. However I am unable to agree with the solution - a consensual democracy model. Becuase such a model gives big business a veto over every policy proposal, and if that happens things can only go from bad to worse. Nothing will ever change in a progressive direction. For instance, we can never get the Internet/ web we want. And if anyone disagrees with this, I am happy to do a scenario building exercise here.

As for strengthening the IGF - as what I would like to call as an institution of (institutionalised) participatory democracy - I completely agree. But as in participatory democracy the relationship of the participatory sphere with policy making and executive spheres has to made clear. A self selection based participatory space cannot replace representation based democratic decision making process. But, yes, there is a much to discussed and innovated within larger principles of democracy which cannot be violated.

parminder



On Friday 01 March 2013 05:19 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
At the UNESCO WSIS plus 10 meeting we had an informal gathering of those Best Bits (BB) participants who were present at the event – about 25 people in total.  We took the opportunity to review the usefulness of the Best Bits process and arrived at the following consensus about the potential roles for BB:
·         To convene a BB regular forum before major international events such as the ITU, IGF etc. to provide an opportunity to share information and develop co-ordinated CS positions on those events;
·         The emphasis of BB should be to convene to take action which means identifying, where possible, common CS positions and acting upon them as we did at the WCIT;  BB is therefore different to more discussion based forums  such as the IG caucus;
·         This will require some degree of organisation. Though specific events can be organised by the relevant groups on the ground (APC offered to organise the pre-Bali IGF BB event) there are a number of tasks that need to be carried out if the network to function.  These include - maintaining the website as an information source about activities; developing a wiki calendar of events that allows BB to share details of who’s going to what meetings; using the website to report back to the wider BB community on positions and actions taken, so strengthening our own accountability and transparency; maintaining the e-mail list and processing new people who want to join as well deregistering those who want to leave.
·         People have offered to take on different tasks (Access, Global Voices, APC etc.). Global  Partners are already developing a calendar of events that could be the basis of a wiki on the website allowing people to signify events they are attending.   Jeremy Malcolm from CI has indicated that he is willing to maintain the web and mailing list; Deborah from Access has also offered to help – any other offers please let me know;

5.      At the BB official workshop we discussed a paper from Jeremy Malcolm looking at issues of internet governance.  It analysed the deficiencies of the current internet governance model as well as suggesting a way forward.  The overall conclusions of the formal discussion were:

 *   We highlighted our concerns that current internet governance mechanisms are deficient. For example, they are unable to successfully address inequalities in internet access, threats to data privacy and network neutrality.
 *   Participants acknowledged that governments do have a legitimate role to play in internet governance, for example in the areas outlined above.
 *   In this context, we felt that the best way forward is to develop and grow the IGF by, for example, enabling the IGF to issue soft law in the form of recommendations or declarations.
 *   Alongside enhancing the IGF it is essential that we address  current accountability and transparency deficiencies of the IGF.
Clearly there are many issues here that need further discussion. To that end we suggest that Jeremy’s paper is circulated on the BB list and discussed with the goal of arriving at an agreed CS position at the Bali IGF BB event.

In the informal meeting an new initiative called the  “Web we want” was mentioned, initiated at a meeting in the Berkman Center in the US, with the support of Tim Berners-Lee.  This initiative hopes to set out what kind of internet we would like to see being built over the next period of time.   There was some concern expressed at the proliferation of initiatives but in the end we suggested we incorporate it as one of the themes for discussion in the run up to Bali alongside the issue of governance.   So if BB participants are happy the meeting in Bali would have two purposes:  to agree a CSO position on governance and a CS position on the web we want.

In the meantime a calendar of events will be set up on the BB website so that we can indicate who is attending forthcoming meetings of the ITU and CSTD etc. so that we can consult online about strategy and  tactics as will as co-ordinate our advocacy while at the meetings.


Andrew Puddephatt, Director
Global Partners & Associates

Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336
Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350
Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk<mailto:niamh at global-partners.co.uk>
Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK

www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>




--
Josh Levy
Internet Campaign Director
Free Press
413-585-1533 x208

National Conference for Media Reform
Denver, April 5–7, 2013
http://conference.freepress.net<http://conference.freepress.net/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130303/1c66e121/attachment.htm>