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

[Norbert Bollow]

So it would be seen as appropriate for other civil society networks
including IGC (where I have a co-coordinator role) to set up their
own strategy development processes and corresponding interface with
the four appointed civil society liaisons?

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:54:21 -0400
schrieb "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>:

> This only applies to those from civil society who decide to opt in on
> the bestbits platform to a particular action,  statement, or whatever 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> 
> Date:  
> To: Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> 
> Cc: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Meeting
> Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all 
> Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Could someone please clarify whether this is seen as an activity of
> BestBits or of civil society as a whole? Is there an implied claim of
> BestBits somehow representing all of civil society in Internet
> governance?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert