[bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1
Lorena Jaume-Palasi
lorena at collaboratory.de
Tue Apr 29 16:19:45 EDT 2014
+1 +congratulations Jeanette Hofmann and all other civil society, academia
& technical community representatives you made multistakeholder a fact.
Sure, there is room for improvement (the multistakeholder model is still a
baby) but with your work it is definitely here to stay. Thanks to you and
also to all predecesors who seeded the path!
2014-04-29 21:05 GMT+02:00 Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>:
>
>
> I completely agree with Jeanette's suggestions. We had great ideas but
> lacked coordination and did not suggest concrete wording.
>
> We should divide responsibility amongst each other for specific topics
> and have a team working on alternative language. The team should have
> already done in-depth work on understanding the stance of other
> stakeholders at other fora including the UN on that particular topic.
> The CS chairs need to be assisted the way business reps were assisting
> their person. There needs to be real time coordination between the reps
> , the team working on a specific issue and lawyers' who can advise on
> alternative proposals along with other contributors.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 04/26/2014 04:28 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> > Thanks for that Jeanette, that fills in a lot of detail. And having
> > observed you working during the final drafting compilation session (or
> > at least we thought it was) I know you would not have given in on some
> > of these points easily. There will probably be a few other things
> > about the HLMC and its composition (50% government) we could look at
> > in refining the model.
> >
> > You mentioned two things which I quote below as good lessons for us to
> > learn
> >
> > 1. (Jeanette's words) 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!
> >
> > IP - I agree completely. (even if some of the specific words we did
> > come up with made it through the multistakeholder drafting process but
> > got killed at the HLMC)
> >
> > 2. (Jeanette's words)
> > 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.
> >
> > IP - I agree again.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Anyway - we did really well in many ways, but yes we can learn from
> > this experience.
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
> Legal Director
> Software Freedom Law Center
> 1995 Broadway Floor 17
> New York, NY-10023
> (tel) 212-461-1912
> (fax) 212-580-0898
> www.softwarefreedom.org
>
>
> Executive Director
> SFLC.IN
> K-9, Second Floor
> Jangpura Extn.
> New Delhi-110014
> (tel) +91-11-43587126
> (fax) +91-11-24323530
> www.sflc.in
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
(GIG) Ohu
Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.collaboratory.de ∙
Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
∙ Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> ∙ Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> ∙
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140429/c349aebc/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list