[bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

[Anne Jellema]

+1 from me as well.
Anne


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree with Anja.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think
>> ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should
>> have passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the
>> earlier meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all
>> of us, and we could have deliberated on the whether question following
>> that. The CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes
>> we have already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless
>> otherwise agreed by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that
>> role in my opinion.
>>
>> On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives
>> collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder
>> veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think
>> of a process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the
>> NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the
>> WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do.
>>
>> That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part
>> of this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if
>> they are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all,
>> which I think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>> On Sep 4, 2014 11:43 PM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200
>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> > A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG would
>>> > be enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a very strong
>>> > veto power to single members. In that case we would need a discussion
>>> > of which groups and political positions we want to see represented on
>>> > the SCSG.
>>>
>>> So far CSCG's internal processes have worked reasonably well on the
>>> basis of consensus-based decision-making, by which I mean that not
>>> only will a proposed decision only become a decision in the absence of
>>> objections, but also that everyone works together constructively
>>> towards reaching consensus, i.e. there is an implied social contract of
>>> not abusing the possibility of objecting.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> JNC co-convenor and JNC's representative in CSCG.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
CEO
+27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
+1 202 684 6885 (US)
@afjellema

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140905/bce3a600/attachment.htm>