[bestbits] Day 1: Multi-stakeholder Processes and IGF Discussion

[parminder]

On Wednesday 06 November 2013 02:18 AM, joy wrote:
> thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session 
> summary, that would be great:
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms
>

Joy, thanks for the link. However, As I mention below the discussions 
that I describe took place *not* in the multistakeholder session we did 
together on the first day, but in the last session on the second day on 
BB related process issues, held together by Jeremy and Anja...

parminder

> cheers
> Joy
> On 5/11/2013 11:24 p.m., parminder wrote:
>> Hi Joy
>>
>> I refer to interactions during the last plenary session on processes. 
>> It wasnt in the small groups sessions. The exchange about the need 
>> for clearer/ formal processes versus we should not become too formal 
>> and inflexible continued over quite some time, involving many 
>> interventions.
>>
>> As for the details you ask for - it begun I think with a demand that 
>> those closely associated with BB processes be upfront about their 
>> organisational details, funding support etc so that members knew 
>> clearly who is who and so on. To this was added request to be more 
>> clear about goals of the coalition (included if needed through a 
>> charter) and the need to actively reach out to bring in those who 
>> werent here... It was proposed that BB works as a membership driven 
>> organisation, with members driven processes/ decisions. There was 
>> demands for greaer clarity about how decisions are made and who made 
>> them....
>>
>> Regards, parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday 04 November 2013 02:53 AM, joy wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder - i need a clarification please... In relation to the 
>>> Best Bits quality mark idea, you wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>> "when some process issues were raised there were many people 
>>> labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and formalism"
>>> I do not recall this from the large group discussion - but perhaps 
>>> it was in the small groups or was it missed in the meeting notes? To 
>>> assist, can you please be more specific about the actual concerns 
>>> that were raised and those labelling them in this way? It is 
>>> difficult to assess your comments in detail without the particulars .
>>> thanks
>>> Joy
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2013 7:52 p.m., parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> On 20/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>   * A *fluid working group* (to use one of our new catchphrases)
>>>>>     could work online to distill it down into a shorter statement
>>>>>     of principles, and get underway on that now with the aim of
>>>>>     making at least some further progress by the time of our
>>>>>     workshop on Thursday.  Would you be willing to be a focal
>>>>>     point for the fluid working group?
>>>>>   * For the longer-term, we could try to develop these principles
>>>>>     into a standard of our own, that we could apply to various
>>>>>     Internet governance institutions.  During a workshop yesterday
>>>>>     on metrics of multi-stakeholderism, I first raised this idea
>>>>>     as a kind of "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes.
>>>>>      As many people have noted during this IGF already, everything
>>>>>     from the IETF to ICANN to the IGF is called a
>>>>>     "multi-stakeholder process", yet they are so very different.
>>>>>      A *Best Bits "quality label" for multi-stakeholder processes*
>>>>>     could help to provide a more useful benchmark for these
>>>>>     processes than the WSIS process criteria alone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be able to do any such kind of quality labelling, BB would 
>>>> itself first have to follow very high quality processes. However at 
>>>> the f2f meeting when some process issues were raised there were 
>>>> many people labelling them as unneeded inflexibility and 
>>>> formalism.  So, not sure how we would resolve the apparent 
>>>> contradiction here.....
>>>>
>>>> I do think that when people put themselves up for public roles, 
>>>> especially in very political processes like the kind we all are 
>>>> engaged in, they need to be held to very high levels of openness, 
>>>> transparency, accountability and so on, and these things should not 
>>>> be dismissed as unneeded formalism. Democratic public life has been 
>>>> carefully imbued with a lot of such 'formalism' over the centuries 
>>>> precisely because of this reason.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the same fluid working group could take on both objectives 
>>>>> in turn.  What do people 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement 
>>>>> knowledge hub 
>>>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>>
>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | 
>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>>
>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email 
>>>>> unless necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. 
>>>>> For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/f8516569/attachment.htm>