[bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting

[Norbert Bollow]

Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> I actually disagree with what I understand Norbert is suggesting.
> Starting with a blank slate would create a process favoring those
> with the financial resources to attend the meeting, or a best the
> ability to stay online for 2 days trusting remote access (impossible
> for anyone without robust broadband access and power - and then
> there's simple things like time zone.)  Unless I am missing something.

What is wrong with having a process for creating the output document of
a meeting that “favors” the participants of the meeting? (Here I'm
including remote participants among the participants.)

Especially in view of all the controversies that we've witnessed around
concerns about the legitimacy of the selection processes for the various
committees including the EMC, I'd consider the legitimacy of the output
document to be significantly reduced if it has key elements which do
not reflect a consensus of the participants of the meeting, but which
are there because the EMC put those textual elements into the “initial
input” and then there was no consensus to change them. 

If the number of hours which are available at the meeting for working
on the output document are not sufficient for creating the desired
output document, and if this number of hours cannot be increased, then
either there must be a truly bottom-up consensus-based preparatory
process (in which all participants of the meeting can fully participate)
to create the initial draft, or the scope of the intended output
document must be reduced to the point where it becomes realistic for
the participants of the meeting, as a group, to produce the output
document during the meeting itself.

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> > wrote: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial
> > > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the
> > > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not
> > > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think.
> > 
> > Hi Marilia
> > 
> > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO
> > as initial input into the process that created the output document.
> > This initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible,
> > during the very limited and really quite insufficient amount of
> > time available, to reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.
> > 
> > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite
> > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the
> > “initial input”.
> > 
> > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not
> > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate.
> > The compilation of contributions is still important of course, but
> > as a compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can
> > draw upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working
> > document.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Marília Maciel
> > Pesquisadora Gestora
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> > 
> > Researcher and Coordinator
> > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> > 
> > DiploFoundation associate
> > www.diplomacy.edu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>