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

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

Color me "Stockholm".. but I am so oo booked!!

N


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130517/f59a4bb0/attachment.htm>