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

Wed Feb 5 22:26:12 EST 2014

Hi Anja,
It was shared in the discussion list of EMC. I cannot find the message
right now, but I think it was shared on behalf of Jeremy with the info that
the document was still being signed by supporters from BB and it would be
sent again afterwards with the signatures. Adam can confirm.
Best,
M

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> +1 to Deborah.
>
> Marilia, just curious, when was the letter presented to the EMC then? And
> in whose name was it presented then?
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 04:45, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>

-- 
*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/20140206/2e00fe89/attachment.htm>