[bestbits] IGF plus

[Anja Kovacs]

Dear Parminder and all,

I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.

1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept in the
agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend some time
discussing and planning for the processes around them. To my mind, these
are among the most important places where states at present are already
trying to play out their views on enhanced cooperation in practice, with
rather important consequences for civil society (I wrote about this earlier
here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a real
outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil society is
aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also closely involved
(the ITU also happens to be the process around which Best Bits came into
its own, and I think it would be foolish of us to now retreat from whatever
little inroads or impact we have made).

2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one long
session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the morning and
of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I believe that the
question of how we see multistakeholderism is sharpened by our engagements
in these concrete policy fora and how we plan to move forward in them,
while at the same time our engagement with these fora is of course also to
some extent determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them.
In that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS within
those debates, the chances that we move forward are far greater, if not in
terms of coming to a joint position, then at least in terms of
understanding we all take the positions that we take.

One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil society
not only in having important discussions, but also in getting concrete work
done. By framing the agenda for our two days in Bali in the above manner,
we can maximise our outcomes on both counts.

Best regards,
Anja


On 3 September 2013 22:27, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:16 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> Jeremy
>
> My impression was that just a draft of the program has been put forward
> and it has still to go through discussions and approval of the group before
> finalisation.. Is my impression right?
>
> On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I really  think we should
> have at least a full half session on what really is multistakeholderism.
> And that subject alone. I really am not sure what most people here think it
> is . There is this silence zone around its theory and practice. I have
> raised the question often. I think if there is one difference that groups
> like IT for Change have with many other groups in the IG space, it is about
> an understanding of MSism... And while there can be real political
> differences, I dont see why we should have such technical differences, just
> on the meaning and understanding of terms. Lets try to thrash it out
> forever. And we can start this discussion here itself, on this list.
> Importantly, I saw strong support on this list for a specific discussion on
> what is MSism. I think these views should be respected.
>
> I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to rather on Public policy
> making on global IG.... The responses to questionaire issued by the WG on
> enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many developing countries
>
>
> sorry, i meant developed countries
>
>  cite OECD as one important place where global Internet policy making
> takes place. At least now can we take it that indeed a lot of Internet
> policy making takes place in OECD. (See the posting today on the IGC list
> declaring a project implementing - globally - some parts of the OECD
> Principles for Internet Policy Making). why do we only keep asking
> questions of UN based Internet policy processes, and not from places where
> some real policy making takes place.... We should discuss OECD's *global*
> Internet policy making processes as well. And if we want the IEG (Informal
> Experts Group) as the standard model by which ITU whould do its Internet
> related polciy work, why do we hesitate to tell OECD that it should use the
> same model, and none else.... What I suggesting here is - Name this session
> - Where does global Internet policy making take place, how, and what should
> CS do.
>
> Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why are we not ready to to
> name session three directly as NSA or Snowden issue (something stated a
> little better). The world thinks that global IG has changed forever because
> of what Snowden has told us about NSA.... That is not just the regular
> surveillance issue, that we have been talking in all IGFs and should keep
> doing. There is a clear Snowden impact on the global Internet - a huge
> impact. And we need to specifically discuss what this impact is, and how US
> has to be confronted in its (still largely unapologetic) global
> surveillance. That is a specific issue. And Again I saw great support for
> discussing this particular issue at length, but in the current draft this
> issue seem to be hidden as about one sixth of a session, that too without
> mentioning the main actors, NSA, US gov and Snowden.
>
> thanks. parminder
>
>
>  On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>  On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net><parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>  Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...
>
>
>  (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my return to
> the office today.)  We don't have one full day available for this at the
> Best Bits meeting, unless we take out other things that people want to do,
> but I've added this as a sub-item to the draft agenda for Bali for the Day
> 1 morning, under the rather broad heading "Global Internet governance
> principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".
>
> Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that session, you
> can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis between sub-topics for
> discussion.  Most surely, we could spend a full week rather than two days
> if we were to cover everything in the depth it deserves.
>
> I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the steering
> committee, and separately the other nominated facilitators) about this.
> Meanwhile I'm working on getting the registration system going, and Access
> are working on crowd funding for those who need support to participate.
>
>      --
>
> *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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> 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.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/2cd8b000/attachment.htm>