[bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting

[Marilia Maciel]

Hi Jeremy and all,

The topic of models for deliberation are very important. Thanks for raising
it.

My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for
on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the
Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the
organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best
model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If
we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer
assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be
worthy.

Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected
timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule)
and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation.
Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by
the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be
the base of our online debate?  In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are
likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present
moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or
frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it.

If we dont work with one single document posted for comments, are we
suggesting that everybody (at least each stakeholder group) should be able
to post their documents for comments? Then how productive and
cross-stakeholder would that be? Would stakeholders interact, or work to
improve their own documents? Plus, there are huge challenges to shynthetize
online  contributions in a way that we  "arrive at some point" and not just
at another compilation. How do we propose that organizers make a synthesis
of several documents being commented and evolving on different directions?
I think that online consultations are a great idea. We have seen how
effective they can be in our national examples. But I think they need to be
carefully conceived and thought-thorough. My feeling either is that we take
the time to think it through and propose something very clear and concrete
to the organizers, or they wont probably invest their resources on that.
But then, shouldn't we better focus on the actual dynamics of the meeting?

Best,
Marília




On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 31/01/14 12:40, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>  Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the Internet
> Democracy Project to the signatories.
>
> The only small quibble I have is that the one reference to the IGF that is
> maintained (I read the conversation about this on the summit list)
> continues to read a little awkwardly. I've tried to reformulate it in a
> more positive way. Maybe an alternative for the first sentence of the
> second para could be the following?
>
> *As the Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such
> procedures, an important opportunity to achieve these objectives and to
> thus transcend the constraints of the IGF in particular, caused by its
> location within the UN system, now exists. *
>
>
> Thanks, that's very helpful and I've incorporated that amendment now.
>
> This statement is now online for endorsement.  Please add yours at:
>
> http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/
>
> Thanks!
>
> (This is the second of three sign-on statements that go live today.
> Deborah will write about the third.)
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
*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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140204/c0230579/attachment.htm>