[bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF

[Carolina]

Great idea Joana!

Sent from my iPhone

On May 17, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Joana Varonferraz <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Excellent, Jeremy!
> I'm in. 
> 
> Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while others will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm:  it would be great if we get together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in Geneva and elsewhere could be easier. 
> 
> Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play safe, isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills the promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder participation?
> 
> One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in best bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus operandi for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both situations: during events or preparing for them?
> 
> All the best
> 
> Joana
> 
> --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Researcher
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance":
>> 
>> http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit
>> 
>> Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF.  The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs.
>> 
>> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder).  This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so.
>> 
>> I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments.  In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed.  If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there.  (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.)
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>> 
>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>> 
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>> 
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>> 
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130517/58bbf958/attachment.htm>