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

[joy]

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/20131104/7a574825/attachment.htm>