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

[joy]

great - so we can say the notes of the first session are final.
Cheers
Joy
On 13/11/2013 6:53 p.m., parminder wrote:
>
> 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/20131114/a057debd/attachment.htm>