[bestbits] IGF plus

[Anja Kovacs]

Dear Parminder, Anriette and all,

That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more
theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need to
have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing and/or
engaging in.

And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how we
can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented one. I
have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists (even if
without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and don't yet see
where there could be common ground to move forward among the varous stances
that seem to exist on the OECD.

If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy to
hear them.

Best regards,
Anja


On 4 September 2013 16:11, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Completely agree with Anriette - I think it would be excellent to focus on
> concrete practical initiatives we can take
>
> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Executive Director
> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: 04 September 2013 11:38
> To: Valeria Betancourt
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus
>
> 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.orgpo box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>


-- 
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/20130904/9ff05f6d/attachment.htm>