[bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Apr 29 15:28:12 EDT 2014
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Apr 2014 21:12, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 3. My first suggestion. It would be helpful in a two day meeting
structure if we could start discussing the text before 5.30pm on Day One.
The time lost through endless speeches and plenaries and running overtime
on first day was not helpful.
>
+1
> 4. My second suggestion. The time allowed for drafting was insufficient.
As in most writing situations, a second draft for comment is useful. And
the opportunity to comment on a final draft before publication and final
endorsement would also be useful. That might take more time and such a
process might actually need another day. But it would lead to better
outcomes.
>
++1 from day 1 of the f2f I had mentioned this and also after the event as
feedback. However it seem it was viewed as not appreciating the effort of
the NETMundial team which is actually not the case. I for one don't see
why comments made during the call period needed to be repeated at the f2f;
it almost defeated the aim of the comment period.
> Anyway - we did really well in many ways, but yes we can learn from this
experience.
>
+1
Regards
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; best Bits
> Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1
>
>
> From my perspective, it is not correct to say that the process was not
> open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after
> the first and the second set of track sessions.
>
> During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there
> were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would
> insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it
> would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and
> who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments
> engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this
> was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text.
>
> That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public.
> Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among
> people around the table. The people around the table were members of
> HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board.
>
> What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific
> wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the
> entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and
> one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the
> process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole
> process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs.
>
> What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if
> not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions
> that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The
> gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed
> language in areas that matter to them.
>
> Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking
> into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the
> process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously
> become very visible.
>
> So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our
> positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral
> language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is
> the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly
> go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document.
>
> Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had
> better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can
> do.
>
> In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply
> submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by
> several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions
> were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific
> paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording!
>
> Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be
> more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become
> more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting
> comes up.
>
> Jeanette
>
> Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake:
>>
>> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame
we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting
sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of
at the time.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason.
They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the
wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a
better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens.
>>> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember
that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the
open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome
wasn’t built in a day…
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>> Cheers stephanie
>>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible.
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the
last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding
process.
>>>>
>>>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to
observers?
>>>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me).
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar
event, to use the
>>>> online tool, I mean online Notepad.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the
text on the screen,
>>>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google
Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online
can see the process of changing
>>>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes.
>>>>
>>>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in
different rooms of the same
>>>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work,
that make it transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Just a suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
>>>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a
really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not
have worked together so well at the main event.
>>>>
>>>> From: Ian Peter
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1
>>>>
>>>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long
flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and
the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well
together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with
a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume
of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf,
with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand
down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team
work.
>>>>
>>>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting
– and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like
all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that
should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that
after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for
us, and is worth repeating.
>>>>
>>>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there
were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry
at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of
drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those
committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some
governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said,
more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches
the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that.
>>>>
>>>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be
involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps,
and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad
it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our
behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone,
but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done.
>>>>
>>>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work
everyone, really worthwhile event.
>>>>
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>>>
>>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>>>
>>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>>> Japan
>>>> * * * * *
>>>> << Writing the Future of the History >>
>>>> www.anr.org
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140429/7ada49fa/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list