[bestbits] WEF

Sat Sep 6 11:18:18 EDT 2014

Hi Ian,

I thought about this question on my flight back home and my simple 
answer is this: As long as their is an interest in serving and 
representing civil society prinicples in a given body or proccess (1), 
and as long as the CSCG deems at least one candidate suitable for a 
given task (2), I see no reason why the CSCG would not nominate that 
person for it.

I think we should be rather generous with the nominination of civil 
society reps.

First, we may never 100% agree on our valuation of a specific initiative 
such as the WEF process. Second, such initiatives may turn out to be 
more useful than expected. Third, if we keep on nominating good people 
for really useless, embarrassing or boring tasks, the interest in 
serving on such bodies will eventually decline. Thus, the number and 
quality of candidates may be a pretty good indicator for the relevance 
and appropriateness of any initiative.

Should this logic turns out be wrong, we can still think about new 
decision making structures.

jeanette

Am 06.09.14 12:10, schrieb Ian Peter:
> True Jeanette but unless this is accompanied by some sort of separate
> capability for civil society to make policy decisions of this nature in
> reasonable time frames, the primary dilemma remains.
>
> I still ask - Can you suggest how we make a policy decision across
> multiple civil society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether
> to engage or not? (in this case or any other)
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 9:00 PM
> To: Ian Peter ; Ian Peter ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF
>
> Hi Ian, as a first thought I would suggest for this group to clarify its
> mandate to prevent the CSCG from overstepping boundaries its members may
> not even have been aware of. Rules and procedures for this body are a
> must to generate trust among those who will be depending on its services.
> Jeanette
>
> On 6 September 2014 11:30:52 CEST, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
>> This all needs to be clarified, Jeanette...
>>
>> But the primary difficulty is that civil society currently has no forum
>> or
>> methodology to come to a decision on any difficult policy issue; and
>> particularly to
>> do so within any quick time frame.
>>
>> Each individual coalition comes to its own decision; or, in the case of
>> some groups, can't come to any decision. The
>> CSCG, I believe, had to discuss what to do in this context
>> after receiving feedback from its member coalitions.
>>
>> I agree totally CSCG should ideally not be involved in policy, and in
>> this
>> case time was made for each group to discuss its position and advise.
>> But
>> where there are strong and divided opinions between groups as to
>> whether to
>> participate or not, CSCG may have to make some sort of call as to
>> whether to
>> engage or not, and under what conditions. Unless and until there is
>> some
>> sort of
>> overall civil society policy making structure devised, I don't see the
>> alternative.
>>
>> And the primary dilemma is this; irrespective of the arguments in this
>> particular case, if civil society has no capacity to come to a decision
>> within a reasonable time frame as to whether to participate in an
>> initiative - when it was asked to be involved - we are not likely to be
>> asked to be involved very often.  That I guess was the primary
>> frustration
>> that led me to make the statement I did earlier on rather than remain
>> in a
>> more comfortable neutral stance. A decision not to participate is fine;
>> a
>> decision to participate is fine also; but a lack of capacity to make
>> any
>> decision or to consider lengthy delays acceptable when we have a firm
>> deadline, is the most harmful thing we can do to our attempts to create
>> a
>> credible united CS process when it comes to nominations.
>>
>> Fortunately we now have more time, and looking back even the extended
>> timetable we negotiated was too short in the context of IGF and people
>> being
>> so busy.
>>
>> But we still have no methodology to make a decision, so I am not sure
>> how
>> more time will help. Most likely WEF will come up again with a
>> request for candidates, accompanied hopefully by some clear
>> information, and
>> we will start this debate again, once more with limited time to decide.
>>
>> Can you suggest to me how we then make a policy decision across
>> multiple
>> civil
>> society groups in a reasonable time frame as to whether to engage or
>> not?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann
>> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 8:47 AM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] WEF
>>
>> Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>>
>> This is indeed a remarkable comment but, probably unlike what Anja
>> recommends, I would say that the selection committee really should not
>> be in the business of assessing the process or structure for which it
>> selects candidates.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>> Am 05.09.14 22:54, schrieb Ian Peter:
>>> Please note that CSCG received an email yesterday from Alan Marcus of
>>> World Economic Forum, in reply to ours requesting clarification on
>>> various issues as regards possible appointment of civil society reps
>> and
>>> asking for more time. Alan had already left IGF.
>>> The letter really clarified nothing. But it did say that yes we could
>>> have more time (how much not specified). Here is the text
>>> “I believe I understand your questions and concerns. And certainly
>> with
>>> other consultations through out the week I believe I have a much
>> better
>>> appreciation for where the concerns come from and what the
>> opportunities
>>> for collaborative impact can be.
>>> As should be the case, the feedback points to improvement
>> opportunities
>>> for which we are prepared to evolve our thinking.
>>> For now I can agree to give more time and we will take some time as
>> well
>>> to ensure out "tweaks" are well thought through a(nd) reflect
>> feedback
>>> we have received. “
>>> So I think this is all on hold at present – for how long we dont
>> know,
>>> and if anyone has further information please pass it on
>> (confidentially
>>> if you wish).
>>> One of the changes certainly seems to be that they will drop the
>>> NetMundial Initiative name; at least for now This was mentioned at
>>> several meetings throughout the week, and apparently they received a
>> lot
>>> of negative feedback on this.
>>> What will happen as regards CS reps is unknown – we had their earlier
>>> agreement to appoint 4 reps, but this may be one of the “tweaks” that
>>> change. Or the whole thing might just fizzle into nothing.
>>> CSCG  will not be doing anything without further clarification.
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>