[bestbits] Best Bits MAG nominations for your approval - URGENT

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Nov 27 01:28:34 EST 2013


Dear Deborah

Mine is an overall process point - either a statement is a BestBits 
statement or not (although BB elist may get used for some organisations 
to rally around a joint position, its web facility for sign-ons may also 
get used). In making such statements, the term BestBits is not used 
inside the statement as it is being used in the present case. If you use 
the name BestBits inside the statement, it gives a storng impression to 
outside parties, not steeped in our internal processe nuances, that it 
is  a BB statement. I think all (certianly most) earlier joint 
statements of some CS actors - but not BB statements -  did not use the 
term BB inside, meaning as a part of,  the statement.

parminder


On Tuesday 26 November 2013 02:06 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Thank you for quick reply and feedback.
>
> My understanding of the proposal for the joint letter of support is 
> exactly what you suggest: some people and organisations sending 
> support for some names together. Since the individuals in question 
> initially sought support through Best Bits, it seems appropriate that 
> sign on to the letter could be facilitated through the platform. If 
> you feel that the letter goes beyond what is suggested above, then 
> please feel free to suggest edits in the pad.  I have done so, as I 
> feel the text needs to be more precise as to who is endorsing the 
> candidates.
>
> As for your observation about Best Bits being mentioned again and 
> again, I see it mentioned only twice in the current text (perhaps 
> other references have been edited out). I don't see how either of 
> those mentions are controversial -- that those who sign the letter 
> identify themselves as participants in Best Bits and that there was a 
> discussion of this subject on the list between the dates noted.
>
> Looking forward to working with you all to improve these processes on 
> an ongoing basis.
>
> Kind regards,
> Deborah
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Everything in the draft letter makes it look like a Best Bits
>     nominations.... If it is not a Bestbits nomination why does the
>     name Bestbits come again and again in the letter.  why dont we
>     just stop playing around with the process... If some people and
>     organisations want to send some names let them do it together....
>     parminder
>
>
>
>
>     On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>     On 21 Nov 2013, at 4:45 pm, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org
>>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>     To summarise the current status of discussions as I perceive them:
>>>
>>>       * Rather than picking and choosing between the existing civil
>>>         society representatives, we should simply support the
>>>         continuation of all civil society representatives who have
>>>         served less than a three-year term.
>>>       * But if one or more spots are vacant, some affirmative
>>>         support has been received for the self-nominations
>>>         of Matthew Shears, Nnenna Nwakanma, Bertrand de la Chapelle
>>>         to fill them.
>>>       * Self-nominations from Ana Perdigao and Imran Ahmed Shah are
>>>         yet to receive affirmative support.
>>>
>>>
>>>     So, as our contribution, we could add a paragraph simply saying
>>>     the above to the joint civil society MAG nomination letter (see
>>>     below).
>>
>>     Sorry for the delay in following up on this.  Taking into account
>>     the various process objections, we are going to fall back to a
>>     less contentious and more familiar process, which is that of the
>>     sign-on letter.  By no means does this mean that Best Bits should
>>     limit its actions to sign-on letters, and nor does it imply
>>     acceptance of all the objections to the nomination process that
>>     we proposed (some of which will be addressed separately).  But it
>>     does mean that, with only days to go before the deadline, it
>>     makes sense to return to something tried and tested while we work
>>     out the kinks.
>>
>>     So a draft letter (or section of a joint letter, that could be
>>     submitted with the IGC and Diplo) is at
>>     http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/mag-nomination for your consideration.
>>      The nominees shown in the draft letter are those that received
>>     affirmative support on this list during the discussion period
>>     from at least one person other than themselves.  The nominees
>>     also fulfil the criteria that we suggested, which were:
>>
>>       * Must be active civil society participants
>>       * Should be at least 2 from each of the 5 geographical regions
>>         if possible
>>       * Should attempt to achieve gender balance
>>       * Should include as much diversity as possible; e.g. for skill
>>         and knowledge set, age, disability, etc.
>>       * Should include people who have shown commitment to keeping CS
>>         updated on developments
>>       * Should be people who have shown some ability in advocacy with
>>         governments and the private sector in order to help achieve
>>         CS positions
>>
>>     Earlier the same new nominees shown in the letter (though not the
>>     renewing ones, as at that time there was no clear consensus on
>>     whether to include them) were also sent to the IGC nomcom for
>>     consideration in their own nomination process.  To forestall
>>     further procedural debate about this, I just forwarded the names
>>     to the IGC in an individual capacity, with Anja also supporting;
>>     though we are steering committee members, any individual could
>>     have done the same.
>>
>>     The nominations are to be sent to the IGF Secretariat by 1
>>     December, so we will close edits to the draft letter at midnight
>>     GMT on 29 November, and open it for endorsements from 1am.
>>      Please let us have your thoughts by then, either by editing the
>>     pad or replying on this thread.
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     *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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>
>>     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
>>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> |
>>     www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>     <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>
>>     Read our email confidentiality notice
>>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>     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.
>>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org>
> rightscon.org <http://rightscon.org>
>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131127/5e9f9a62/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list