[bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[Carlos A. Afonso]

"Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or 
taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the 
objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit 
shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these 
"relationships".

--c.a.

On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others.  Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states.  Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns.  If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting.  But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to.
>
> Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded?
>
> Bill
>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm
>> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57
>> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime
>>
>> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models..  The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions.  Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins."  The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised.
>>
>> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response.  This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6.  Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting.
>>
>> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early?  I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday:
>>
>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception.
>>
>> This requires:
>> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented   information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights.
>> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced.
>> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event,  and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate.
>> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of  good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the  initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders  will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs.
>> We  stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is  not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of  meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness  and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and  participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation.
>
>
>
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>    Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>    University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>    ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
>    www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>