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

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 3 Nov 2013, at 8:24 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 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.

I have been needing to clarify that, and was going to do that in a separate email, but might as well quickly do so in this thread.  In the flurry of emails that I responded to (from my phone at the airport!) on the way back from Bali, I make a couple of mistakes.  The first was to forget that Andrew also wasn't present at our steering group meeting.  The other was to misrepresent that meeting was responsible for finalising the content of the statement, which as you correctly point out, is outside its role, and isn't really the way it happened.  Rather, as one of my other replies records more accurately, the steering committee meeting just affirmed that we should post the statement by the last day of the IGF.  As to the content of the statement, I had just attempted to integrate all the comments that had been given on it to that point, but doing so as part of the original drafting group rather than as a steering committee member.

Here is a proposed fleshed out version of the existing draft procedure around statements, which is open for comment (the bold parts are either new, or significantly rearranged):

> Anyone may propose to the main mailing list that a statement (eg. joint letter, submission) be posted to the Best Bits website.  Any such proposal should be accompanied by either:
> a proposed text, accompanied by a description of the process by which it was drafted and a proposed process and timetable for finalising and posting it for endorsement; or
> a proposed process and timetable for drafting, finalising and posting the text for endorsement.
> The process and timetable may vary depending on context and urgency, but in general:
> the text should be finalised by a fluid working group that is open to civil society participants from the main Best Bits mailing list (but which might work on a separate mailing list, which could be closed);
> the timescale for drafting the text should normally be at least 48 hours;
> the draft text should normally be posted to the main Best Bits mailing list for comment at least another 48 hours before being posted to the website;
> there should be an adequate balance between inclusiveness of the initial drafting process, and the finality of the text.  (In other words, we would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a few groups from one part of the world drafted.)
> Objections to the posting of a text for endorsement may be made at the stage of its initial proposal, or at a later stage when the draft text is posted for comment, and can be made both on strategic and on substantive grounds. Possible grounds for opposition include:
> The statement is not on-topic for Best Bits.
> Any proposed statement should not go against the Best Bits goals but should in fact further those.
> The process and timetable are not realistic, or are not inclusive enough.
> The process and timetable have not been complied with.
> However, consensus is not required in order for a text to be posted.  If significant opposition to the posting of the text has been voiced on the main list and cannot be resolved, the steering committee may make a final decision about whether or not to post the statement, in consultation with at least one proponent of the text and at least one opponent.


As to other matters - transparency and accountability, etc - not that your extensive remarks aren't useful, but I will have to respond to them later as I have just arrived in Paris for an OECD meeting, at which I will be tied up for the next few days.  Anyway I mostly agree, save that we should however avoid becoming too inward-looking at the expense of responding to urgent substantive matters over the next few months until the Brazil summit.  Anyway, this includes developing accountable and transparent representative structures.  So it links in with your concern.

-- 
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/20131103/31ec3dd3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/31ec3dd3/attachment.sig>