[bestbits] IGF plus

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Dear all

Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
Avri and Anja are proposing.

E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
but it is still a good start).

Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
ways?

Anriette



On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>
> Valeria
>
>
> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
>> in the following days.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692