process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

Fri Nov 1 08:19:32 EDT 2013

Dear all

+1 from me in terms of the distinction between Best Bits as a platform that gathers certain organizations/individuals under a civil society rubric to discuss and facilitate certain actions rather than a network that claims to represent all possible actors in this space so here +1 from me to the point Eduardo Bertoni raises as well.

Best
MF

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini
Sent: 31 October 2013 17:31
To: Andrew Puddephatt
Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Anja Kovacs; John Curran; Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

+1 on Andrew regarding my understanding of Best Bits

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
I think the precise position is that Best Bits is a platform that enables action/collaboration.  As a platform it therefore does not sign letters  in its own right - a letter goes from the organisations willing to sign it directly not BB itself.  It's an important distinction and one we need to be careful about.

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Executive Director
Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336> | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597<tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597> | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<http://gp-digital.org>

From: ebertoni65 at gmail.com<mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com> [mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com<mailto:ebertoni65 at gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Eduardo Bertoni
Sent: 31 October 2013 16:32

To: Anja Kovacs
Cc: John Curran; Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

Dear all,

I jump (late) to this debate. My reaction is, perhaps, more related to the core of BestBits. Something that I asked in Bali, and frankly, I didn´t get any answer. For me the core question is about what BestBits is. Is it a platform, that NGOs and other could use for debate and at some point use the technological platform to work on letters or statements? Is it a network, from where ALL the participants have a voice, have the chance to open deliberations, and at the end, reach to decisions to execute some concrete actions ON BEHALF of the network, meaning ALL the organizations? Is it a network where decisions are delegated to some groups?

I was very concern with the language used in the past to present, for example, the last letters or statements. Concrete example: I heard that the letter to the President of Brazil was a letter coming from BestBits. Well, I didn´t signed the letter and I think that I participate in Best Bits. In fact was a letter signed by a group of people or organizations, not BY Best Bits. Am I wrong?

Maybe I am introducing a philosophical discussion, maybe is something already discussed that I don´t know, maybe some people use the word platform and network as synonymous. What I strongly believe is this: if it is not clear what BestBits is and how takes decisions, we will have a never end discussion.

Best

Eduardo

Eduardo

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
Dear all,
I have been in favour of keeping some discussions closed, at least in the early stages, for quite a while, and have been so for the reasons John and Kivuva point out: other stakeholder groups do so all the time, and a strategic argument to keep parts of a conversation limited to a smaller group does not mean that conversation cannot be reported back on to a larger group. As long as the latter happens, need more closed conversations really be a problem?
As again confirmed during the Best Bits meeting, two specific characteristics of Best Bits as a network are that it is action-oriented and that it seeks to bridge the differences and disagreements between the Global South and North.
To my mind, the strategy of being transparent at all times is one of the main reasons why action is often inhibited and civil society is often less effective than it could be. This is not only because we put all our cards on the table all the time - something which puts other stakeholders at an advantage. It is also because fully open lists do not encourage sharing certain kinds of information and ideas that could actually help to massively improve effectiveness of civil society action (and as is the case so often, perhaps Global South civil society is perhaps more vulnerable here than Global North civil society).

In fact, if Best Bits has been working, it is because so much is actually done by small groups of people who want to do something, trust each other, start coordinating, and then bring their ideas, once crystallised, to the main list (what are now called "fluid working groups" in BB lingo ;)

If we ignore this reality, this will only be at our own peril.

I don't see transparency as an end in itself, but is a means to an end, which is the creation of a level playing field. Because of power differentials, different stakeholder groups are differently placed in this field, and whatever strategies we decide on should keep this in mind. The redistribution of power should drive our actions, not transparency as such.
Thanks and best regards,
Anja

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

--
Carolina Rossini
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/10f25717/attachment.htm>