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

[parminder]

On Thursday 31 October 2013 10:14 PM, Andrew Puddephatt 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.
>

I saw an apparent direct role of Bestbits (BB) steering committee with 
regard to the most recent statement developed here, which does not fit 
with the above 'platform' nature of BB.

One also knows that recently a statement that has wide acceptability and 
a little opposition (which opposition was also mostly not substantive 
and only to the extent of need to postpone the issuing of the statement) 
was refused by the steering committee to be hosted on the BB platform, 
with no clear reasons given thereof.

I also know that once the BB platform has been employed, the concerned 
statements often get mentioned as BB statements, including by steering 
committee members.. I also know that outside institutions that receive 
these statements, and other outside actors like the press and so on, 
refer to most of not all of these statements as BB statements.

And with the very high profile that BB is increasingly building as the 
primary civil society group in this area (to a good extent at the cost 
of IGC, although in the present narrative I will stay neutral in terms 
of any value judgements on this shift) provides a great amount of new 
'powers' like being the contact person to connect with other powerful 
groups, sending reps to various processes etc.... And increasingly such 
'powers' come to the custodians of the BB group. (BTW, I will like to 
know from the BB steering committee whether any such contacts were made 
with them at the Bali IGF, like to meet different 'other groups', send 
reps, etc, and if so, how did they respond to it).

Basically, what I am saying here is that the processes around the BB 
group, need to be taken seriously, and should be very transparent, 
responsive and accountable. Sometimes by giving 'neutral' and 'no 
specific power' kind of self descriptions, like that of being 'only a 
platform', one can escape such formal requirements expected from those 
who manage the concerned processes.

I think that BB group is a CS coalition  (I see the term still being 
used by a few steering committee members right now on this elist) and 
accordingly should follow very high standards of processes of 
custodian-ship or trusteeship for the concerned persons/ organisations. 
Most decision making should be done by the larger coalition by a process 
set up, as appropriate,  for that purpose.

While BB employ some 'new age' flexible processes, which could be  a 
very useful thing - the term 'platform' should not be used (not that 
anyone right now is using it in this way) to escape responsibility which 
comes with managing positions and roles of power.

In the network age, we all know how custodians of 'platforms' - for 
social networking, knowledge/ information listing and sharing, and so on 
- do increasingly mis use their powers, while insisting that they really 
have no power and are merely process managers of 'neutral platforms'. We 
have to remain very vary that such a problematic phenomenon - kind of 
endemic to network age power structures - does not become a part of 
civil society arrangements.

Power is best recognised where it exists, rather that deny it. Such 
recognition makes it much easier to deal with power, rather than its 
invisiblisation.

I prefer that we recognise the coalition/ network nature of BB group, 
and accordingly are also mindful of the power inherent in custodianship 
of its various processes - and accordingly develop all the necessary and 
appropriate processes to manage it.

We can develop conditions of membership of this coalition/ network, 
which can be of belonging to civil society organisations with open 
statement of interest, objectives, activities and funding, and of 
individuals, who come with civil society background and credentials.  
And then we can develop processes of decision making that are 
members-driven.

parminder

> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>
> Executive Director
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> *gp-digital.org*
>
> *From:*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
> *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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/dcfcb7ad/attachment.htm>