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

[joy]

thanks Parminder - if you could add those notes to the session summary,
that would be great:
http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/bb-ms

cheers
Joy
On 5/11/2013 11:24 p.m., parminder wrote:
> Hi Joy
>
> I refer to interactions during the last plenary session on processes.
> It wasnt in the small groups sessions. The exchange about the need for
> clearer/ formal processes versus we should not become too formal and
> inflexible continued over quite some time, involving many interventions.
>
> As for the details you ask for - it begun I think with a demand that
> those closely associated with BB processes be upfront about their
> organisational details, funding support etc so that members knew
> clearly who is who and so on. To this was added request to be more
> clear about goals of the coalition (included if needed through a
> charter) and the need to actively reach out to bring in those who
> werent here... It was proposed that BB works as a membership driven
> organisation, with members driven processes/ decisions. There was
> demands for greaer clarity about how decisions are made and who made
> them....
>
> Regards, parminder
>
>
>
> On Monday 04 November 2013 02:53 AM, joy wrote:
>> 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/20131106/b3e85a95/attachment.htm>