[bestbits] Logistical note for Best Bits meeting participants

[parminder]

Hi John

The kind of issues that you raise are among the ones that will be 
discussed. So we take your input into the session.. However, all the 
points that you mention are such that everyone here will agree should be 
part of all policy making processes.. But the real issue, in my view, 
lies elsewhere. What is the role of non gov participants - especially 
but not only private companies -  in situations where actual public 
policy making is involved - real public policy which directly affects 
people's important interests, and somewhere/ somehow also involves use 
of corecive force in some way or the other.

Say, if net neutrality regulation is being developed in a country, is it 
necessary that big telco business should be an 'equal' part of that 
decision, and perhaps have some kind of veto over that decision. Same 
for privacy regulation, or, to go further, universal access policies, 
consumer protection laws and so on..

parminder


On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:55 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>> The two-day meeting has been divided roughly into four half-day 
>> sessions, covering just about all of the most critical Internet 
>> policy issues of the moment.  Although theagenda 
>> <http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013>(particularly for Day 1 morning) is 
>> still slightly fluid, we will cover mass government surveillance, the 
>> Brazil/ICANN plan for globalisation of Internet goverernance, 
>> Internet principles, and the processes underway at WSIS+10 and the 
>> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, plus more
>
> I note on the agenda is the item "What is multi-stakeholderism?" 
> (presumably with
> respect to matters of Internet coordination/governance)
>
> As obvious as this question might seem, it is not clear that everyone 
> is using the
> term in the same manner, and documenting the meaning of the term with 
> some
> clarity might be very helpful in the coming days (particularly if it 
> were to be defined
> from the civil society perspective)
>
> In particular, does multi-stakeholderism imply or require:
>
> - Agreement of all participants to work to collective goal or common 
> purpose?
>
> - Openness and inclusiveness in seeking input/views from all 
> interested parties?
>
> - Documents and materials made freely available online to all parties?
>
> - Clear, equitable processes for developing outcomes which provide 
> consideration of all inputs/views?
>
> - Respect for all participants involved?
>
> If there is a statement or accepted norm with respect to the term 
> "multi-stakeholder"
> (in matters of Internet coordination/governance) I am not aware of it, 
> although the term
> does seem to be used quite a bit and might benefit from a more solid 
> set of principles
> regarding its use.  If this suggestion is not aligned with your 
> present plans or goals for
> the meeting, feel free to discard it as desired.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> Disclaimers: My views alone.  These views were not formed via 
> multi-stakeholder
>                    processes (unless one credits various portions of 
> my consciousness
>                    with independent stakeholder status... ;-)
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131016/eeb03f5f/attachment.htm>