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

[Norbert Bollow]

Dear all

I'd like to quickly clarify that my remark below on the nature of the
consensus processes within CSCG (to which Anja replied) was *only*
intended to assure everyone that JNC is not attempting to claim any
kind of unreasonable veto power within CSCG. (I had interpreted some
earlier postings as expressing concern in that direction between the
lines.)

In particular it was not my intention to in any way take over any
aspect of the roles of Jeremy (who is the representative of BestBits in
CSCG) and Ian (who is CSCG's non-voting chair).

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition and JNC's represwentative in JNC
(and for that reason not intervening in any of the BestBits-internal
discussions on any of the matters which Anja addresses below, except to
answer any questions or misunderstandings regarding JNC and our
positions.)


On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 19:37:17 +0530
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
> >