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

Wed Feb 5 18:15:22 EST 2014

Thank you Marilia and Joana for this clarification and +1 to Joana and
Jeremy's points.

I agree on using online tools to develop the draft but if the organizers
determine that's not possible and a committee drafts it, then I would say
the EC would be the better choice for the reasons Joana raised, and that
online consultations should follow.

Best,
Deborah

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been some
> misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The synthesis
> will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the meeting. It
> will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. It will be
> done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. Daniel
> Fink's team).
>
> In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the synthesis
> document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as input to
> the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis document but
> would suggest one way forward for principles and for the discussion about
> frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting would be free to use
> this document, or discard it, or change it as they deem appropriate. The
> draft texts would be only a starting point. This was something that EMC
> mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at this stage we are
> not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to other document or
> not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that we do have draft
> text and that this document is placed under consultation online.
>
> I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering that
> the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the schedule
> and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under
> consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards.
>
> Best!
> Marília
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will
>> raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on
>> this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marília
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> +1 to Jeremy.
>>>
>>> Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of
>>> proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it:
>>>
>>> a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the
>>> participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it
>>> without broader consultation);
>>>
>>> b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April
>>> (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the
>>> Committees will just become a black box)
>>>
>>> c) probably a better proposal
>>>
>>> On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should
>>> use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to
>>> build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene
>>> a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize
>>> it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at
>>> W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help
>>> for brainstorming.
>>>
>>> And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take
>>> is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced
>>> at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and
>>> the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for
>>> internet freedom/multistakeholderism).
>>>
>>> my two cents
>>>
>>> joana
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> @joana_varon
>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis
>>>> for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop
>>>> it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would
>>>> be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible.
>>>> This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively
>>>> facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s.  The facilitation will
>>>> be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how
>>>> to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way.  I'm not understating
>>>> the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible
>>>> outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>

-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140205/da60afa2/attachment.htm>