process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

For what it is worth, I hope that all the communities will discuss things in the open. After all, given we are all in favour of transparency, it seems to me we should all practice what we preach.

On 29 Oct 2013, at 18:05, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Hi Adam, 
> 
> Just a note to clarify: the goal for having a list closed just to civil society in its wider definition is not to "filter coordination of civil society through steering committees", quite the contrary: it is to be able to strategize in a more organized strategic manner among the general community. 
> 
> I believe that this particular issue has positively address during the bestbits meeting, where there was some general agreement that we could use a closed list for sensitive issues. But if anyone feels it is ok to strategize about how to engage in a coalition/dialogue with technical and business community having companies on the thread or to strategize how to engage with the brazilian government for the summit having other governments on the list. Please, do not hesitate to raise your point. 
> 
> best
> 
> joana 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi Joana,
> 
> Thanks for the notes.  I was in Bali but not able to attend any of the meetings discussing the Brazil/ICANN summit plans.  And have been quite surprised at the silence about these meetings so a report on this one session is great to see.
> 
> So a general request: could we please improve communication. Mainly I mean reporting from meetings such as those held in Bali: if people are attending as civil society, speaking in some way for civil society, then please at least report back to the rest.
> 
> On the issues of closed lists, etc.  Civil society coordination shouldn't be filtering through steering committees and others, we got through WSIS without an executive, the IGF came from civil society through our open processes.  This summit and whatever follows shouldn't be more different.  Please do not take this as lack of gratitude for the information received, meetings organized and held, etc, etc.
> 
> Second note more on substance later.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> 
> > Dear people,
> >
> > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the meeting of the “coalition/dialogue” (it doesnt has a name yet) that happened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideration.
> > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in debates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and the one with the Brazilian delegation.
> > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and will be important for the next reports and steps:
> >
> >       • We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance between being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft working procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But will attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the server is back up.
> > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns raised during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use the widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning that all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or private sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it will be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposition to it, please, let us know.
> >
> > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialogue in a closed list?
> > All the best,
> > Joana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joana Varon Ferraz
> > @joana_varon
> > PGP 0x016B8E73
> >
> >
> > <coalition:dialogue_meeting.doc>____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131029/42eb7153/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131029/42eb7153/attachment.sig>