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

[Anja Kovacs]

You can count me in for the drafting also, Jeremy.

As for the proposal to draft rules for procedures, I think it's a great
idea for statements that we want to call Best Bits statements. I think we
have to be realistic, however, that not all statements that will be shared
with this list will necessarily reach that stage. In the case of the
statements some of us made collectively at the WTPF, for example, we were
drafting as we were running, and I think if we would have needed to follow
a formal set of rules that would ensure all on the list would be fully
consulted, we might never have been able to come up with a statement at
all. I think it's important to keep that flexibility open, even if I think
it's a good idea for all of us to always share our statements with each
other, whether we can take more input into account or not.

Best,
Anja (from Frankfurt airport)
On May 18, 2013 2:06 AM, "Deborah Brown" <deborah at accessnow.org> wrote:

> +1 on the idea of a drafting a document and to Joana and Valeria's
> proposal to develop procedures. It wouldn't need to be anything overly
> formal, but just something to guide us around the recent challenges. I'm
> happy to contribute to both efforts.
> Cheers,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>wrote:
>
>> Great idea, Jeremy.
>>
>> Anriette and I will be in Geneva next week for the IGF OC and could
>> introduce the note here.
>>
>> I agree with Joana that agreeing a procedure to develop statements would
>> be very useful. It would not only ensure the legitimacy of the positions we
>> develop and adopt but would be useful to share the work collaboratively.
>>
>> Valeria
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/17 Joana Varonferraz <joana at varonferraz.com>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Valeria Betancourt
>> Directora / Manager
>> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
>> Information
>> Policy Programme
>> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
>> Progressive Communications, APC
>> http://www.apc.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130518/eeae2317/attachment.htm>