From saragtti at gmail.com Mon Mar 4 15:05:00 2019 From: saragtti at gmail.com (Sara Fratti) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:05:00 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Webinar: "Increasing diversity on the Internet" Message-ID: The Women SIG is hosting the Webinar: "International Women's Day: Increasing diversity on the Internet" this March 8. Join us to know more about the amazing work that different organizations and ISOC chapters are doing to close the digital gender gap and achieve a better balanced Internet. When: Friday, March 8 – 13:00 UTC Where: https://isoc.zoom.us/j/285172661 Register: https://goo.gl/forms/O9YAftcnT2nT3Jva2 Contact us: sigwomenisoc at gmail.com Follow us on Facebook and Twitter . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IWD webinar.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 213208 bytes Desc: not available URL: From saragtti at gmail.com Fri Mar 15 19:24:03 2019 From: saragtti at gmail.com (Sara Fratti) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:24:03 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Open Call for Digital Rights in Latin America Message-ID: We announce the launch of the Initiative for Digital Rights in Latin America (Indela ). Under the strategic direction of Fundación Avina , Luminate and Open Society Foundations , and supported by the Ford Foundation and the International Development Research Center (IDRC), Indela is an initiative that will fund, build capacities and provide support to organizations that promote digital rights in Latin America. Between 2019 and 2021, Indela will fund *projects of digital rights organizations in Latin America*, on public campaigns, applied research, advocacy and litigation on topics: freedom of expression, privacy and access to knowledge. The first Open Call closes on *March 31, 2019*, with a financing limit per project of up to *USD 75,000*. Enter our website to know the requirements and present your project and follow us on Facebook and Twitter . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Indela,EN.png Type: image/png Size: 1198089 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Indela, Open Call, EN.png Type: image/png Size: 752362 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Sun Mar 17 12:31:26 2019 From: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net (parminder (via bestbits Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 22:01:26 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Urgent: Request for organizational endorsement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a0304ea-e317-19e1-d5b3-e0f375c9f456@itforchange.net> The below is self explanatory. See if your organisation will like to sign it. Please do also forward to your networks. Thanks, parminder Here is an updated English version of the sign-on letter, for you to circulate to your networks.   *THANKS to the 166 organizations which have already endorsed. PLEASE check out this urgent action and endorse through the form. More info in the attachment & below! *   Urgent: Request for organizational endorsement    *   Spanish below  *  Français ci-dessous   Dear all,    We are facing an unprecedented fight in the struggle against inequality and corporate globalization: the urgent need to stop the launch of talks for a WTO 2.0!    U.S.-based Big Tech are now the largest corporations in the world. Their increasing power over our communications, information, media, elections, commerce, transportation, education, agriculture, and more – basically all aspects of our jobs, livelihoods and economies – is becoming more obvious by the day. Now they are using their monopoly profits to try to fundamentally transform the rules of the global economy, to fully liberalize every aspect of the economy, all of which will have a digital aspect in the future. Their goal is to gain new rights to operate in markets across the globe, while handcuffing public interest oversight and regulation; maintaining their monopoly powers and control over data; accessing an unlimited supply of labor stripped of its rights; and non-payment of taxes. They are disguising these efforts as promoting “e-commerce for development” but the proposals would go far beyond “e-commerce” and are antithetical to any future development or shared prosperity for workers and consumers around the world.    /_On January 25, 2019, at the World Economic Forum, they announced the intention to start negotiations on “e-commerce” in the World Trade Organization! _/   These proposed negotiations _must be stopped_. We urge your organizational endorsement of the attached statement, by March 27, 2019 at the latest. We will send the letter to governments, media and the public on April 1 when a big conference on e-commerce will take place in Geneva.    *PLEASE register your organization’s support by endorsing the statement here: **https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151 **by March 27th. *   Thank you and thank you for your efforts for a just, sustainable and democratic global economy!   Best wishes,  Deborah James Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) global network Short background: In July 2016, at the request of the Big Tech industry, the United States tabled a proposal for disciplines on digital trade (also called e-commerce) in the World Trade WTO. Since then, dozens have proposals have circulated. The existing mandate within the WTO is to have discussions on e-commerce in the WTO, but not to have negotiations on potential binding rules. At the same time, there is a mandate since the launch of the Doha Round in 2001 to reduce WTO constraints to development policy space in developing countries, but developed country members have refused to agree to the necessary changes. (In addition, developed countries have also blocked reforms to the agriculture rules that have been demanded by developing countries for decades, because they constrain poor countries from providing subsidized food to their own impoverished populations.) Nevertheless 2017, the goal of rich countries was to set aside the development agenda permanently, and instead launch new negotiations on e-commerce in the WTO. They are trying sell these new talks by portraying e-commerce as good for development, women, and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). However, by this time, many African officials had come to the understanding that the proposals went far beyond “e-commerce” and were really intending a full and complete liberalization of all aspects of the future digital economy.  OWINFS members have argued that, among other fundamental problems: ·       this new e-commerce agenda would permanently consolidate the first-mover status and monopoly control of developed country high tech firms in their countries, particularly through the control of data;  ·       it would also foreclose the development policy space for countries to develop their own digital industrialization; ·       using e-commerce for development is completely different than negotiating binding rules that were developed by lawyers of U.S.-based high-tech companies; ·       prosed disciplines in the WTO would give multinationals market access rights while limiting the role of the state in regulation; ·       there would be a massive negative fiscal impact of agreeing to the five different ways Big Tech had invented in the proposals to avoid paying taxes, while non-digital businesses would still be needed to contribute to the fiscal base; ·       developed countries have ignored the needs of developing countries for closing the digital divide, for infrastructure, access to electricity and broadband, skills upgrading, and other prerequisites; ·       developed countries wanted the new negotiations “for free,” without agreeing to any of the decades-old demands for more development policy space that would result in jobs, development and poverty reduction worldwide.  With tremendous support from civil society, developing countries, led by the Africa Group, refused this bait-and-switch, and refused to agree to new talks in the WTO on e-commerce (now called “digital trade”) at the December 2017 WTO Ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  The e-commerce agenda is still in the form of discussions, not negotiations, in the WTO. And developing countries have the policy space to promote digital trade by domestic firms, and to build up their digital industrialization through various policies, performance requirements, subsidies, incentives and the like.  But Big Tech and its advocates in the WTO are still pushing for this anti-development agenda with the goal of wearing down the resistance and gaining agreement to be accepted at the next Ministerial.  (They do so with support from some developing countries in an attempt to reduce the glaringly anti-development appearance of the agenda.)  *At the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 25, 2019, proponents announced their intention to commence negotiations*. Extensive research by civil society experts is available on _www.ourworldisnotforsale.net _.      Urgente: Solicitud de adhesiones de organizaciones   *   Francés a continuación   Estimad at s:   Nos encontramos ante una batalla sin precedentes en la lucha contra la desigualdad y la globalización agenciada por las empresas transnacionales: ¡la necesidad urgente de detener el inicio de negociaciones por una OMC 2.0!   Las grandes empresas de tecnología con sede en Estados Unidos son hoy las mayores empresas del mundo. Su poder creciente sobre nuestras comunicaciones, información, medios, elecciones, comercio, transporte, educación, agricultura y más -básicamente todos los aspectos de nuestros empleos, medios de sustento y economías, es cada día más evidente. Ahora están usando sus ganancias monopólicas para intentar transformar fundamentalmente las normas de la economía global para liberalizar por completo todos los aspectos de la economía, que tendrán todos ellos un aspecto digital en el futuro. Su meta es obtener nuevos derechos para operar en los mercados de todo el mundo, imponiendo a la vez restricciones a las medidas de control y la reglamentación de interés público; preservar su poder monopólico y el control de los datos; acceder a una oferta ilimitada de mano de obra a la que se le niegan todos los derechos; y evitar pagar impuestos. Encubren sus intenciones aparentando promover el "comercio electrónico para el desarrollo", pero sus propuestas van más allá del "comercio electrónico" y se contraponen a cualquier desarrollo futuro o prosperidad compartida para l at s trabajadores/as y consumidores/as de todo el mundo. /_El 25 de enero de 2019 anunciaron en el Foro Económico Mundial la intención de iniciar negociaciones sobre "comercio electrónico" en la Organización Mundial del Comercio._/   _Es imprescindible detener_esta propuesta de negociaciones. Instamos a vuestras organizaciones a sumarse a la declaración adjunta antes del 27 de marzo de 2019. Enviaremos la carta a los gobiernos, los medios y el público el 1 de abril, fecha en que se llevará a cabo en Ginebra, Suiza, una gran conferencia sobre comercio electrónico.   *POR FAVOR manifiesten su respaldo como organizaciones en contra del avasallamiento de la economía mundial por las grandes empresas de tecnología, sumándose aquí https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151 a la declaración a más tardar el 27 de marzo.*   Gracias por vuestra adhesión y por vuestros esfuerzos a favor de una economía mundial justa, sustentable y democrática.   Saluda atentamente, Deborah James Red Nuestro Mundo No Está En Venta (OWINFS) Breves antecedentes: En julio de 2016, a solicitud de las grandes empresas de tecnología, Estados Unidos propuso establecer disciplinas sobre el comercio digital (también conocido como comercio electrónico) en la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC). Desde entonces, se han circulado decenas de propuestas. El mandato actual en el marco de la OMC es mantener discusiones sobre el comercio electrónico en la OMC, pero no llevar a cabo negociaciones sobre posibles normas vinculantes. Al mismo tiempo, desde el inicio de la Ronda de Doha en 2001, la OMC tiene el mandato de restringir su facultad de limitar el margen de maniobra de los países en desarrollo en materia de políticas para su desarrollo, pero los países desarrollados miembro se han negado a acordar los cambios necesarios. (Además, los países desarrollados también han impedido que prosperen las reformas a las normas agrícolas que vienen exigiendo los países en desarrollo desde hace décadas, ya que limitan la facultad de los países pobres de proporcionar alimentos subsidiados a sus propias poblaciones empobrecidas). De todas maneras en 2017, la meta de los países ricos en la Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC en Buenos Aires fue dejar de lado para siempre la agenda de desarrollo y en su lugar dar inicio a nuevas negociaciones sobre comercio electrónico en la OMC. Intentan promocionar estas nuevas negociaciones presentando el comercio electrónico como algo bueno para el desarrollo, las mujeres y las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas (MPYME). Sin embargo, en ese momento, muchos delegados africanos entendieron que las propuestas iban mucho más allá del "comercio electrónico" y que en realidad lo que querían era una liberalización completa de todos los aspectos de la economía digital del futuro. Los miembros de OWINFS han argumentado que, entre otros problemas fundamentales: ·       esta nueva agenda del comercio electrónico consolidaría el control monopólico de las empresas de tecnología de los países desarrollados en sus países y su condición y ventajas como pioneras, particularmente a través del control de los datos; ·       también anularía el margen de maniobra en materia de políticas de desarrollo para que los países puedan emprender su propia industrialización digital; ·       usar el comercio electrónico para desarrollarse es completamente distinto que negociar normas vinculantes que fueron redactadas por los abogados de las empresas de tecnología con sede en Estados Unidos; ·       las disciplinas propuestas para la OMC les darían a las multinacionales derechos de acceso al mercado a la vez limitarían el papel del Estado como órgano regulador; ·       el impacto fiscal negativo sería de inmensas proporciones si se llegasen a aprobar las cinco maneras distintas que las grandes empresas de tecnología se inventaron para evitar tener que pagar impuestos, mientras que las empresas no digitales seguirían estando obligadas a contribuir al fisco; ·       los países desarrollados han hecho oídos sordos a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo en lo que hace a cerrar la brecha digital, en materia de infraestructura, acceso a electricidad y banda ancha, mejorar su habilidades, y otros prerrequisitos; ·       los países desarrollados querían que se aprobase iniciar las nuevas negociaciones "gratuitamente", sin aceptar ninguno de los reclamos que vienen haciendo los países en desarrollo desde hace décadas a favor de mayores márgenes de maniobra en materia de políticas de desarrollo que conducirían a más empleo, desarrollo y reducción de la pobreza en todo el mundo. Con mucho apoyo de la sociedad civil, los países en desarrollo, liderados por el Grupo Africano, rechazaron esta táctica de señuelo y sustitución, y se negaron a aprobar nuevas negociaciones en el marco de la OMC sobre comercio electrónico (ahora llamado "comercio digital) en la Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC realizada en Buenos Aires, Argentina, en diciembre de 2017. La agenda de comercio electrónico sigue su curos en la OMC en la forma de discusiones, no negociaciones. Y los países en desarrollo tienen margen de maniobra para promover el comercio digital mediante empresas nacionales y desarrollar su industrialización digital a través de diversas políticas, requisitos de desempeño, subsidios, incentivos y similares. Pero las grandes empresas de tecnología y sus defensores en la OMC continúan presionando a favor de esta agenda anti-desarrollo con el propósito de debilitar la resistencia y garantizar que en la próxima Conferencia Ministerial se aprueben sus intenciones.  (Lo hacen con apoyo de algunos países en desarrollo para tratar así de minimizar el evidente carácter anti-desarrollo de esta agenda). *En el Foro Económico Mundial de Davos el 25 de enero de 2019, los promotores del comercio electrónico anunciaron su intención de iniciar negociaciones. * Hay mucha investigación disponible realizada por expertos/as de la sociedad civil en _www.ourworldisnotforsale.net_.     Urgent: Demande de signature par les organisations   Chers collègues,    Nous faisons face à une bataille sans précédent dans la lutte contre les inégalités et la mondialisation menées par les multinationales : le besoin urgent d’arrêter le lancement de négociations pour une OMC 2.0 !   Les Big Tech basées aux Etats-Unis sont devenues les plus grandes multinationales au monde. Leur pouvoir croissant sur nos communications, information, médias, élections, commerce, transport, éducation, agriculture et plus – pratiquement tous les aspects de nos emplois, moyens de subsistance et économies – devient chaque jour plus évident. Maintenant ils utilisent leurs profits monopolistiques pour essayer de transformer radicalement les règles de l’économie globale et pour libéraliser entièrement chaque aspect de l’économie qui aura un aspect numérique à l’avenir. Leur but est d’acquérir de nouveaux droits d’opérer dans les marchés du monde entier, tout en limitant la supervision et la régulation dans l’intérêt public ; de maintenir leurs pouvoirs monopolistiques et le contrôle des données ; d’avoir accès à une offre illimitée de main d’œuvre sans droits ; et de ne pas payer d’impôts. Elles cachent ces efforts en faisant semblant de promouvoir « l’e-commerce pour le développement », mais leurs propositions iraient beaucoup plus loin que « l’e-commerce » et elles sont aux antipodes de tout développement futur ou prospérité partagée pour les travailleurs et les consommateurs du monde entier.   /_Le 25 janvier 2019, au Forum économique mondial, ils ont annoncé leur intention de lancer des négociations sur « l’e-commerce » à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce! _/   Ces propositions _doivent être arrêtées_. Nous demandons à votre organisation de signer la lettre ci-jointe d’ici le 27 mars 2019 au plus tard. Nous allons l’envoyer aux gouvernements, médias et public le 1^er avril à l’occasion d’une grande conférence sur l’e-commerce qui aura lieu à Genève.   *Veuillez svp enregistrer le soutien de votre organisation contre la mainmise des Big Tech sur l’économie globale en signant la lettre d’ici le 27 mars ici : https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151. *   Merci et merci pour vos efforts en faveur d’une économie mondiale juste, durable et démocratique!   Meilleures salutations,  Deborah James Réseau international Notre monde n’est pas à vendre (OWINFS) Court récapitulatif: en juillet 2016, à la demande de l’industrie de la haute technologie, les Etats-Unis ont proposé des disciplines sur le commerce électronique (appelé aussi e-commerce) à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). Depuis lors, des dizaines de propositions ont circulé. Le mandat existant à l’OMC est de discuter d’e-commerce, mais pas de mener des négociations sur des règles potentiellement contraignantes. En même temps, depuis le lancement du Cycle de Doha en 2001, il y a un mandat de réduire les contraintes de l’OMC sur l’espace politique des pays en développement, mais les pays développés membres ont refusé d’accepter les changements nécessaires. (En plus, les pays développés ont aussi bloqué des réformes aux règles sur l’agriculture demandées par les pays en développement depuis des décennies, car elles limitent la capacité des pays pauvres à fournir de la nourriture subventionnée à leurs populations appauvries).  Malgré cela en 2017 l’objectif des pays riches était de mettre de côté pour toujours l’agenda de développement et, au lieu de cela, de lancer de nouvelles négociations sur l’e-commerce à l’OMC. Ils essaient de vendre ces nouvelles discussions en disant que l’e-commerce est bon pour le développement, les femmes et les micro, petites et moyennes entreprises (MPME). Mais de nombreux officiels africains ont compris que les propositions vont beaucoup plus loin que «l’e-commerce » et qu’elles ont l’ambition de libéraliser complètement tous les aspects de l’économie numérique future. Les membres d'OWINFS ont fait valoir que, parmi d'autres problèmes fondamentaux : * ce nouveau programme de commerce électronique consoliderait de façon permanente le statut de précurseur et le contrôle monopolistique des entreprises de haute technologie des pays développés dans leur pays, en particulier par le contrôle des données; * Il empêcherait également les pays de développer leur propre industrialisation numérique en matière de politique de développement; * L'utilisation du commerce électronique pour le développement est complètement différente de la négociation de règles contraignantes élaborées par des avocats d'entreprises de haute technologie établies aux États-Unis ; * Les disciplines adoptées à l'OMC donneraient aux multinationales des droits d'accès au marché tout en limitant le rôle de l'État dans la réglementation ; * Il y aurait un impact fiscal négatif massif si l'on acceptait les cinq façons différentes que les Big Tech avaient inventé dans les propositions pour éviter de payer des impôts, alors que les entreprises non numériques devraient toujours contribuer à l'assiette fiscale ; * Les pays développés n'ont pas tenu compte des besoins des pays en développement en matière de réduction de la fracture numérique, d'infrastructures, d'accès à l'électricité et à la large bande, de perfectionnement des compétences et d'autres conditions préalables ; * Les pays développés voulaient que les nouvelles négociations soient " gratuites ", sans accepter les demandes formulées depuis des décennies en faveur d'une plus grande marge de manœuvre en matière de politique de développement qui se traduirait par des emplois, le développement et la réduction de la pauvreté dans le monde entier. Avec l'énorme soutien de la société civile, les pays en développement, menés par le Groupe africain, ont refusé cet appât et ce changement, et ont refusé d'accepter de nouvelles négociations à l'OMC sur le commerce électronique (maintenant appelé " commerce numérique ") lors de la réunion ministérielle de l'OMC de décembre 2017 à Buenos Aires, Argentine. L'agenda du commerce électronique se présente toujours sous la forme de discussions, et non de négociations, au sein de l'OMC. Et les pays en développement disposent d'une marge d'action pour promouvoir le commerce numérique des entreprises nationales et développer leur industrialisation numérique grâce à diverses politiques, exigences de performance, subventions, incitations et autres mesures similaires. Mais les Big Tech et les défenseurs au sein de l'OMC continuent de faire pression pour que ce programme anti-développement soit accepté lors de la prochaine réunion ministérielle, dans le but de réduire la résistance et d'obtenir un accord.  (Ils le font avec l'appui de certains pays en développement afin de tenter de réduire l'aspect manifestement anti-développement de l'ordre du jour.) *Au Forum économique mondial de Davos, le 25 janvier 2019, les promoteurs ont annoncé leur intention d'entamer des négociations.* Des recherches approfondies menées par des experts de la société civile sont disponibles sur www.ourworldisnotforsale.net       *Petit répertoire d'informations complémentaires sur la tentative de prise de contrôle de l'économie mondiale par le Big Tech* *Disponible en français*     1. Douze raisons de s’opposer aux règles sur le commerce électronique à l’OMC: _pdf _, _docx _   2. Localisation des données: Une question d’Etat de droit et de développement économique: pdf   3. Politiques publiques pour l’économie de la plateforme: Tendances actuelles et directions futures : pdf   4. L’industrialisation numérique dans les pays en développement - Un aperçu du monde des affaires et de la politique. Sommaire exécutif : docx   5. La 4ème révolution industrielle amplifiera le fossé numérique : Position d’Alliance Sud : pdf       -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSO Letter Digital Trade 2019-03-17-ENG.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 51520 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Short directory Big Tech Takeover-EN.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18172 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSO Letter Digital Trade 2019-03-17-ES.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 52757 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Short directory Big Tech Takeover-ES.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15994 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSO Letter Digital Trade 2019-03-17-FR.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 51860 bytes Desc: not available URL: From federicorodriguezfcs at gmail.com Sun Mar 17 20:30:03 2019 From: federicorodriguezfcs at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Federico_Rodr=C3=ADguez_Hormaechea?=) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 21:30:03 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Open Call for Digital Rights in Latin America In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great Sara! Thx for sharing! On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:24 PM Sara Fratti wrote: > We announce the launch of the Initiative for Digital Rights in Latin > America (Indela ). > > Under the strategic direction of Fundación Avina , > Luminate and Open Society Foundations > , and supported by the Ford > Foundation and the International > Development Research Center (IDRC), Indela is an > initiative that will fund, build capacities and provide support to > organizations that promote digital rights in Latin America. > > Between 2019 and 2021, Indela will fund *projects of digital rights > organizations in Latin America*, on public campaigns, applied research, > advocacy and litigation on topics: freedom of expression, privacy and > access to knowledge. > > The first Open Call closes on *March 31, 2019*, with a financing limit > per project of up to *USD 75,000*. > > Enter our website to know the requirements and > present your project and follow us on Facebook > and Twitter > . > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- *Lic. Federico Rodríguez Hormaechea* ObservaTIC Facultad de Ciencias Sociales Universidad de la República Montevideo - Uruguay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Mon Mar 18 11:34:10 2019 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael J. Oghia) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:34:10 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Funding anti-disinformation campaigns Message-ID: Hi everyone, A friend of mine reached out to me from Media Matters for Democracy, a really engaged NGO in Pakistan, about procuring funding/sponsorship for an anti-disinformation campaign they are running. I'm not sure if this is a good place to ask this, but I figured I would anyway. Many of the initiatives meant to fight disinformation and misinformation seem local or regional, and I'm not sure if OSF, the EU, and other funders are interested (which is really a shame). Anyways, let me know if you have any concrete suggestions. Best, -Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yannis at registry.asia Tue Mar 19 12:34:30 2019 From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:34:30 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Extended Deadline: 29 Mar] APrIGF Vladivostok 2019 - Open Call for Workshop Proposals References: <68392205-AC55-4F31-B808-5E8C0CAA4D12@aprigf.asia> Message-ID: Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF Vladivostok 2019 16 July - 19 July 2019 Far Eastern University, Vladivostok http://2019.aprigf.asia Submit your Workshop Proposal by 29 Mar! Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) is one of the key regional initiatives on Internet governance which provides an open platform for multi-stakeholders to discuss and identify issues and priorities, and ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia Pacific region as well as bring forward and contribute to the wider global Internet community. The 2019 meeting will be held at the Far Eastern University on Russky Island hosted by Coordination Center for TLD RU. Our Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group(MSG) now would like to call upon the community to contribute to the program development process and suggest any workshop proposals for 2019. Overarching Theme: Ensuring a Safe, Secure, and Universal Internet for All in Asia Pacific Online Submission Form: https://www.aprigf.asia/news/2019/call-for-workshop-proposals.html Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 18 Mar 2018 (Mon), 29 Mar 2019 (Fri) 24:00 UTC **Kindly read through the CFP guideline and the 2019 sub-themes before you submit a proposal! Sign up as a Potential Speaker If you are planning to participate in APrIGF whether in-person or remotely and are open to sharing your expertise as a speaker, we encourage you to sign up as a potential speaker. Person who is providing information to this Potential Speaker Form will be listed publicly as a directory where you may be invited by workshop organizers to be speaker/penalist on workshop relating to his/her field of expertise and experiences. Sign up Instructions and List: https://igf.asia/2019speakers If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia . If you are interested to join the APrIGF community to share and discuss relevant issues or seek collaborators for a workshop, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia by sending in subscription request to the secretariat. We also welcome any organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact the secretariat for more information. Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF http://www.aprigf.asia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Mar 21 14:11:27 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:11:27 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear all, It's been really great to see the level of engagement in these conversations about strengthening civil society coordination, and I know there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The conversations have been premised on a general interest in changing the current situation (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination network), and collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil society coordination on the issues we work on. Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which gathered a broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a summary report of the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris there was discussion of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do that however, it would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and agree a way forward. I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It would be great if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can confirm the date and set up a room. https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis *Suggested agenda* 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward 3) Meeting at RightsCon? Looking forward to building on your energy and contributions so far! Best Sheetal. On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I have attached the > anonymised results as a text document, with a summary included at the top > in case useful. > > As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first half spent > discussing the results and suggesting a way forward (45 minutes-1 hour) and > the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC founders and other key > members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate call too. > > The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to find a way to > promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to change the current > state of affairs. I hope that they help in finding a way forward which does > this and in so doing, responds to the widest possible range of opinion. > Should you have any other suggestions on how to proceed, please do chime > in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle for a follow up call. > > Thanks again. > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We've received a useful number of responses but it would be great to hear >> from more people about the future of Bestbits. If you could fill out the >> survey by COB this Friday that would be much appreciated. >> >> http://bestbits.net/ >> >> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >> >> index&sid=528319 >> >> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to decide next steps >> next week. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you to those who >>> have responded already. >>> >>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if you can, by >>> using the link below. The survey responses will feed into the next set of >>> discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/ >>> >>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>> >>> index&sid=528319 >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please see a survey >>>> below to gather your views on the future of Bestbits. Following a call on >>>> February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as members of IGC, it was >>>> agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather views of all members. >>>> >>>> The survey is preceded by a background information note which includes >>>> a summary of the discussions so far, and links to the summaries of calls. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>> >>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited to complete >>>> the survey. To inform future discussions in a timely way, please complete >>>> the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any questions at all, don't >>>> hesitate to get in touch. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call yesterday. For those >>>>> who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list of participants and >>>>> notes here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>> >>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward for Bestbits, >>>>> building on the previous conversation in December and the discussion on >>>>> this thread since. >>>>> >>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both Bestbits and IGC >>>>> have been facing challenges in fulfilling their objectives, particularly >>>>> when it comes to coordination and we agreed to circulate a survey to both >>>>> lists to gather perspectives on four suggested ways forward which were >>>>> discussed on the call. It was suggested that this survey with the broader >>>>> communities feed into a decision on the future of the platforms. The survey >>>>> will be circulated shortly to both lists shortly, and your participation >>>>> would be greatly appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next steps is this >>>>>> coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. The full details are >>>>>> included in my previous email and I've updated the etherpad >>>>>> with those >>>>>> planning to attend. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for filling out the doodle! It seems the best time for the >>>>>>> call is* 4-6 PM UTC on February 11*. The full details of the call, >>>>>>> including how to join, are below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks to Farzaneh for setting up the room. Looking forward to >>>>>>> speaking to as many of you as possible on the 11th! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Bestbits call: Future pathways * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Date and time: * >>>>>>> 11 February, 4:00-6:00 PM UTC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Online Meeting room: * >>>>>>> To join the Meeting: >>>>>>> https://bluejeans.com/819760256 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To join via Room System: >>>>>>> Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or-199.48.152.152 >>>>>>> Meeting ID : 819760256 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To join via phone : >>>>>>> 1) Dial: >>>>>>> +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>>>> +1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free) >>>>>>> +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>>>> (see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Enter Conference ID : 819760256 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note that if you call in, your phone number will appear on >>>>>>> the Bluejeans room page. We would like to record and share the link with >>>>>>> the BestBits network on the mailing list. Please let us know if you do not >>>>>>> want the recording to be shared on an open mailing list if you call in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Proposed agenda: * >>>>>>> *Aim: *to discuss the future of the Bestbits and IGC lists, >>>>>>> including the possibility of a merger + other options >>>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>>> network >>>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo - using lists as information sharing devices: >>>>>>> pros and cons of each >>>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making >>>>>>> regarding future of the lists >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *RSVP on etherpad* >>>>>>> I've put the agenda in this pad >>>>>>> and I've also >>>>>>> added the names of those who indicated they were available for the call at >>>>>>> this time. Of course, as a Bestbits member you can join the call without >>>>>>> indicating that in the pad, this is just to have a vague idea of numbers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 14:13, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's been great to see the engagement on this topic, and thanks to >>>>>>>> those who have shared their perspectives and the relevant documents too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In December when we had the call we agreed to touch base again in >>>>>>>> the middle of January to agree a way forward. The discussions here provide >>>>>>>> rich ground for the discussion, and Farzaneh has kindly offered to set up a >>>>>>>> conference call space for us. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am circulating below a doodle for our second call to decide next >>>>>>>> steps. This is a suggested agenda: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>>>> network >>>>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo, e.g using lists as information sharing >>>>>>>> devices: pros and cons of each approach >>>>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision >>>>>>>> making regarding future of Bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Having spoken to those who arranged the last call, we suggest only >>>>>>>> Bestbits members are invited but that we also reach out to some IGC folks >>>>>>>> to help provide some background and inform the discussion only. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/yzmbvibwp6n4s976 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If everyone could fill out the doodle by the end of next week >>>>>>>> (Friday, 25 Jan) we can set a time and send the conference room link too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, Deirdre Williams < >>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please excuse the cross-posting. >>>>>>>>> I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple >>>>>>>>> of questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are >>>>>>>>> saying. >>>>>>>>> 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing >>>>>>>>> things/ working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging >>>>>>>>> the two groups again really improve participation? >>>>>>>>> 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what we >>>>>>>>> want to do, how we want to do it? >>>>>>>>> 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC and >>>>>>>>> Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same >>>>>>>>> priorities? >>>>>>>>> Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we would >>>>>>>>> make much progress. >>>>>>>>> Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us >>>>>>>>> also belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying >>>>>>>>> volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. >>>>>>>>> Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a >>>>>>>>> common voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to >>>>>>>>> devise something different? >>>>>>>>> Best wishes for 2019 >>>>>>>>> Deirdre >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of >>>>>>>>>> Bestbits - >>>>>>>>>> > could you share more information about how it was constituted >>>>>>>>>> and why? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been >>>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>>> agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT >>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>> coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was >>>>>>>>>> important, >>>>>>>>>> so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of >>>>>>>>>> IGC >>>>>>>>>> resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were >>>>>>>>>> (misplaced but >>>>>>>>>> damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden >>>>>>>>>> agendas >>>>>>>>>> or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So >>>>>>>>>> whereas the >>>>>>>>>> original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, >>>>>>>>>> pressure to >>>>>>>>>> adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us >>>>>>>>>> investing >>>>>>>>>> a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and >>>>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>>> As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't motivated >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> engage in these new processes, indicating that the more >>>>>>>>>> lightweight >>>>>>>>>> structure had probably been better. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate Best >>>>>>>>>> Bits, >>>>>>>>>> even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit Prostasia >>>>>>>>>> Foundation now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>>>>>>>>> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>>>>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Mon Mar 25 15:01:44 2019 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:01:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Two positions open at APC - global policy advocacy project coordinator & grant writer Message-ID: <9fbf357a-7fc9-257d-5e38-8d9ad2a5ffdf@apc.org> Dear all, APC is looking to hire a global policy advocacy project coordinator and a grant writer (more details below). Please help us the word. _*Global policy advocacy project coordinato**r*_ The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has an exciting opening for someone with experience and knowledge around digital rights and internet policy to join our team working on global policy advocacy. *Who we are looking for: *You have experience working with international non-profit organisations and you want to join an international team working for social justice, human rights and development with a feminist perspective. You are also committed to APC’s mission, vision, values, principles and approaches. *Main purpose of the position:* To ensure that APC’s global policy advocacy work involves APC members and partners and is well coordinated, consistent, clearly communicated and responsive to the most pressing challenges to digital rights and internet governance. The ideal candidate can shift seamlessly between providing project support and policy expertise, can quickly and clearly communicate complex issues, and has the ability to both generate/mediate policy discussions and turn them into concrete positions. The position will report to APC’s global policy advocacy lead. *Deadline for applications: 6 April 2019** **** * *****The full job call here: https://www.apc.org/en/node/35396/ * *_Grant writer_* The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is looking for an experienced grant writer to join our team. The selected candidate will be responsible for fundraising and resource mobilisation strategies. Who we are looking for: You have experience working with international non-profit organisations and you want to join an international team working for social justice, human rights and development with a feminist perspective. You are also committed to APC’s mission, vision, values, principles and approaches. You are an excellent writer with experience in desk-based research, grant writing and proposal development. You pay attention to detail and can work with tight deadlines and remain calm under pressure. You enjoy working with and developing online tools, platforms and systems, are comfortable working remotely, are well organised and can work unsupervised. Deadline for applications: *29 March 2019 *at 23:59 UTC *The full call here: https://www.apc.org/en/node/35381/ * All the best, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Global Policy Advocacy Lead Association for Progressive Communications (APC) www.apc.org deborah at apc.org @deblebrown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 874 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Mar 28 14:41:24 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 18:41:24 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear all Thank you to those who filled out the doodle! We will next meet at *1 PM UTC on April 10*. I will follow up with meeting room. In the meantime, please find the agenda below: *Suggested agenda* 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward 3) Meeting at RightsCon Best Sheetal. On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 18:11, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > It's been really great to see the level of engagement in these > conversations about strengthening civil society coordination, and I know > there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The conversations have > been premised on a general interest in changing the current situation > (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination network), and > collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil society coordination > on the issues we work on. > > Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which gathered a > broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a summary report of > the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris there was discussion > of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do that however, it > would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and agree a way > forward. > > I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It would be great > if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can confirm the date and set up a > room. > > https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis > > *Suggested agenda* > 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion > 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward > 3) Meeting at RightsCon? > > Looking forward to building on your energy and contributions so far! > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I have attached >> the anonymised results as a text document, with a summary included at the >> top in case useful. >> >> As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first half spent >> discussing the results and suggesting a way forward (45 minutes-1 hour) and >> the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC founders and other key >> members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate call too. >> >> The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to find a way to >> promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to change the >> current state of affairs. I hope that they help in finding a way forward >> which does this and in so doing, responds to the widest possible range of >> opinion. Should you have any other suggestions on how to proceed, please do >> chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle for a follow up call. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We've received a useful number of responses but it would be great to >>> hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. If you could fill out >>> the survey by COB this Friday that would be much appreciated. >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/ >>> >>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>> >>> index&sid=528319 >>> >>> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to decide next steps >>> next week. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you to those who >>>> have responded already. >>>> >>>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if you can, by >>>> using the link below. The survey responses will feed into the next set of >>>> discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>> >>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>> >>>> index&sid=528319 >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please see a survey >>>>> below to gather your views on the future of Bestbits. Following a call on >>>>> February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as members of IGC, it was >>>>> agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather views of all members. >>>>> >>>>> The survey is preceded by a background information note which includes >>>>> a summary of the discussions so far, and links to the summaries of calls. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>>> >>>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited to complete >>>>> the survey. To inform future discussions in a timely way, please complete >>>>> the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any questions at all, don't >>>>> hesitate to get in touch. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call yesterday. For those >>>>>> who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list of participants and >>>>>> notes here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>>> >>>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward for >>>>>> Bestbits, building on the previous conversation in December and the >>>>>> discussion on this thread since. >>>>>> >>>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both Bestbits and IGC >>>>>> have been facing challenges in fulfilling their objectives, particularly >>>>>> when it comes to coordination and we agreed to circulate a survey to both >>>>>> lists to gather perspectives on four suggested ways forward which were >>>>>> discussed on the call. It was suggested that this survey with the broader >>>>>> communities feed into a decision on the future of the platforms. The survey >>>>>> will be circulated shortly to both lists shortly, and your participation >>>>>> would be greatly appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next steps is this >>>>>>> coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. The full details are >>>>>>> included in my previous email and I've updated the etherpad >>>>>>> with those >>>>>>> planning to attend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for filling out the doodle! It seems the best time for >>>>>>>> the call is* 4-6 PM UTC on February 11*. The full details of the >>>>>>>> call, including how to join, are below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to Farzaneh for setting up the room. Looking forward to >>>>>>>> speaking to as many of you as possible on the 11th! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Bestbits call: Future pathways * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Date and time: * >>>>>>>> 11 February, 4:00-6:00 PM UTC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Online Meeting room: * >>>>>>>> To join the Meeting: >>>>>>>> https://bluejeans.com/819760256 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To join via Room System: >>>>>>>> Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or-199.48.152.152 >>>>>>>> Meeting ID : 819760256 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To join via phone : >>>>>>>> 1) Dial: >>>>>>>> +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>>>>> +1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free) >>>>>>>> +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>>>>> (see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Enter Conference ID : 819760256 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note that if you call in, your phone number will appear on >>>>>>>> the Bluejeans room page. We would like to record and share the link with >>>>>>>> the BestBits network on the mailing list. Please let us know if you do not >>>>>>>> want the recording to be shared on an open mailing list if you call in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Proposed agenda: * >>>>>>>> *Aim: *to discuss the future of the Bestbits and IGC lists, >>>>>>>> including the possibility of a merger + other options >>>>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>>>> network >>>>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo - using lists as information sharing devices: >>>>>>>> pros and cons of each >>>>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision >>>>>>>> making regarding future of the lists >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *RSVP on etherpad* >>>>>>>> I've put the agenda in this pad >>>>>>>> and I've also >>>>>>>> added the names of those who indicated they were available for the call at >>>>>>>> this time. Of course, as a Bestbits member you can join the call without >>>>>>>> indicating that in the pad, this is just to have a vague idea of numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 14:13, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's been great to see the engagement on this topic, and thanks to >>>>>>>>> those who have shared their perspectives and the relevant documents too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In December when we had the call we agreed to touch base again in >>>>>>>>> the middle of January to agree a way forward. The discussions here provide >>>>>>>>> rich ground for the discussion, and Farzaneh has kindly offered to set up a >>>>>>>>> conference call space for us. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am circulating below a doodle for our second call to decide next >>>>>>>>> steps. This is a suggested agenda: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>>>>> network >>>>>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo, e.g using lists as information sharing >>>>>>>>> devices: pros and cons of each approach >>>>>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision >>>>>>>>> making regarding future of Bestbits >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having spoken to those who arranged the last call, we suggest only >>>>>>>>> Bestbits members are invited but that we also reach out to some IGC folks >>>>>>>>> to help provide some background and inform the discussion only. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/yzmbvibwp6n4s976 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If everyone could fill out the doodle by the end of next week >>>>>>>>> (Friday, 25 Jan) we can set a time and send the conference room link too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, Deirdre Williams < >>>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please excuse the cross-posting. >>>>>>>>>> I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple >>>>>>>>>> of questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are >>>>>>>>>> saying. >>>>>>>>>> 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing >>>>>>>>>> things/ working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging >>>>>>>>>> the two groups again really improve participation? >>>>>>>>>> 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what >>>>>>>>>> we want to do, how we want to do it? >>>>>>>>>> 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC >>>>>>>>>> and Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same >>>>>>>>>> priorities? >>>>>>>>>> Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we >>>>>>>>>> would make much progress. >>>>>>>>>> Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us >>>>>>>>>> also belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying >>>>>>>>>> volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. >>>>>>>>>> Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a >>>>>>>>>> common voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to >>>>>>>>>> devise something different? >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes for 2019 >>>>>>>>>> Deirdre >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm < >>>>>>>>>> jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of >>>>>>>>>>> Bestbits - >>>>>>>>>>> > could you share more information about how it was constituted >>>>>>>>>>> and why? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been >>>>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>>>> agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was >>>>>>>>>>> important, >>>>>>>>>>> so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of >>>>>>>>>>> IGC >>>>>>>>>>> resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC >>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>> the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were >>>>>>>>>>> (misplaced but >>>>>>>>>>> damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden >>>>>>>>>>> agendas >>>>>>>>>>> or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So >>>>>>>>>>> whereas the >>>>>>>>>>> original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, >>>>>>>>>>> pressure to >>>>>>>>>>> adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us >>>>>>>>>>> investing >>>>>>>>>>> a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and >>>>>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>>>> As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't >>>>>>>>>>> motivated to >>>>>>>>>>> engage in these new processes, indicating that the more >>>>>>>>>>> lightweight >>>>>>>>>>> structure had probably been better. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate >>>>>>>>>>> Best Bits, >>>>>>>>>>> even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>> there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit >>>>>>>>>>> Prostasia >>>>>>>>>>> Foundation now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>>>>>>>>>> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>>>>>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 6.Internet at gmail.com Sun Mar 31 16:41:17 2019 From: 6.Internet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 02:11:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: With apologies for cross-posting, I see a limited response, only about 8 respondents. Is there a corresponding message on the IGC list? Possibly the poll announcement hasn't reached those who are subscribed only to the IGC list. (or because the title of the message says "future of Bestbits" rather than say "future of IG Civil Society". Sivasubramanian M On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:41 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > It's been really great to see the level of engagement in these > conversations about strengthening civil society coordination, and I know > there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The conversations have > been premised on a general interest in changing the current situation > (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination network), and > collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil society coordination > on the issues we work on. > > Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which gathered a > broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a summary report of > the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris there was discussion > of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do that however, it > would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and agree a way > forward. > > I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It would be great > if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can confirm the date and set up a > room. > > https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis > > *Suggested agenda* > 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion > 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward > 3) Meeting at RightsCon? > > Looking forward to building on your energy and contributions so far! > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I have attached >> the anonymised results as a text document, with a summary included at the >> top in case useful. >> >> As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first half spent >> discussing the results and suggesting a way forward (45 minutes-1 hour) and >> the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC founders and other key >> members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate call too. >> >> The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to find a way to >> promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to change the >> current state of affairs. I hope that they help in finding a way forward >> which does this and in so doing, responds to the widest possible range of >> opinion. Should you have any other suggestions on how to proceed, please do >> chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle for a follow up call. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We've received a useful number of responses but it would be great to >>> hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. If you could fill out >>> the survey by COB this Friday that would be much appreciated. >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/ >>> >>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>> >>> index&sid=528319 >>> >>> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to decide next steps >>> next week. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you to those who >>>> have responded already. >>>> >>>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if you can, by >>>> using the link below. The survey responses will feed into the next set of >>>> discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>> >>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>> >>>> index&sid=528319 >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please see a survey >>>>> below to gather your views on the future of Bestbits. Following a call on >>>>> February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as members of IGC, it was >>>>> agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather views of all members. >>>>> >>>>> The survey is preceded by a background information note which includes >>>>> a summary of the discussions so far, and links to the summaries of calls. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>>> >>>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited to complete >>>>> the survey. To inform future discussions in a timely way, please complete >>>>> the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any questions at all, don't >>>>> hesitate to get in touch. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call yesterday. For those >>>>>> who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list of participants and >>>>>> notes here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>>> >>>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward for >>>>>> Bestbits, building on the previous conversation in December and the >>>>>> discussion on this thread since. >>>>>> >>>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both Bestbits and IGC >>>>>> have been facing challenges in fulfilling their objectives, particularly >>>>>> when it comes to coordination and we agreed to circulate a survey to both >>>>>> lists to gather perspectives on four suggested ways forward which were >>>>>> discussed on the call. It was suggested that this survey with the broader >>>>>> communities feed into a decision on the future of the platforms. The survey >>>>>> will be circulated shortly to both lists shortly, and your participation >>>>>> would be greatly appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next steps is this >>>>>>> coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. The full details are >>>>>>> included in my previous email and I've updated the etherpad >>>>>>> with those >>>>>>> planning to attend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for filling out the doodle! It seems the best time for >>>>>>>> the call is* 4-6 PM UTC on February 11*. The full details of the >>>>>>>> call, including how to join, are below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to Farzaneh for setting up the room. Looking forward to >>>>>>>> speaking to as many of you as possible on the 11th! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Bestbits call: Future pathways * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Date and time: * >>>>>>>> 11 February, 4:00-6:00 PM UTC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Online Meeting room: * >>>>>>>> To join the Meeting: >>>>>>>> https://bluejeans.com/819760256 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To join via Room System: >>>>>>>> Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or-199.48.152.152 >>>>>>>> Meeting ID : 819760256 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To join via phone : >>>>>>>> 1) Dial: >>>>>>>> +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>>>>> +1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free) >>>>>>>> +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>>>>> (see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) Enter Conference ID : 819760256 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note that if you call in, your phone number will appear on >>>>>>>> the Bluejeans room page. We would like to record and share the link with >>>>>>>> the BestBits network on the mailing list. Please let us know if you do not >>>>>>>> want the recording to be shared on an open mailing list if you call in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Proposed agenda: * >>>>>>>> *Aim: *to discuss the future of the Bestbits and IGC lists, >>>>>>>> including the possibility of a merger + other options >>>>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>>>> network >>>>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo - using lists as information sharing devices: >>>>>>>> pros and cons of each >>>>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision >>>>>>>> making regarding future of the lists >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *RSVP on etherpad* >>>>>>>> I've put the agenda in this pad >>>>>>>> and I've also >>>>>>>> added the names of those who indicated they were available for the call at >>>>>>>> this time. Of course, as a Bestbits member you can join the call without >>>>>>>> indicating that in the pad, this is just to have a vague idea of numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 14:13, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's been great to see the engagement on this topic, and thanks to >>>>>>>>> those who have shared their perspectives and the relevant documents too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In December when we had the call we agreed to touch base again in >>>>>>>>> the middle of January to agree a way forward. The discussions here provide >>>>>>>>> rich ground for the discussion, and Farzaneh has kindly offered to set up a >>>>>>>>> conference call space for us. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am circulating below a doodle for our second call to decide next >>>>>>>>> steps. This is a suggested agenda: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>>>>> network >>>>>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo, e.g using lists as information sharing >>>>>>>>> devices: pros and cons of each approach >>>>>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision >>>>>>>>> making regarding future of Bestbits >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having spoken to those who arranged the last call, we suggest only >>>>>>>>> Bestbits members are invited but that we also reach out to some IGC folks >>>>>>>>> to help provide some background and inform the discussion only. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/yzmbvibwp6n4s976 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If everyone could fill out the doodle by the end of next week >>>>>>>>> (Friday, 25 Jan) we can set a time and send the conference room link too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, Deirdre Williams < >>>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please excuse the cross-posting. >>>>>>>>>> I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple >>>>>>>>>> of questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are >>>>>>>>>> saying. >>>>>>>>>> 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing >>>>>>>>>> things/ working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging >>>>>>>>>> the two groups again really improve participation? >>>>>>>>>> 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what >>>>>>>>>> we want to do, how we want to do it? >>>>>>>>>> 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC >>>>>>>>>> and Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same >>>>>>>>>> priorities? >>>>>>>>>> Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we >>>>>>>>>> would make much progress. >>>>>>>>>> Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us >>>>>>>>>> also belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying >>>>>>>>>> volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. >>>>>>>>>> Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a >>>>>>>>>> common voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to >>>>>>>>>> devise something different? >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes for 2019 >>>>>>>>>> Deirdre >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm < >>>>>>>>>> jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of >>>>>>>>>>> Bestbits - >>>>>>>>>>> > could you share more information about how it was constituted >>>>>>>>>>> and why? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been >>>>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>>>> agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was >>>>>>>>>>> important, >>>>>>>>>>> so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of >>>>>>>>>>> IGC >>>>>>>>>>> resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC >>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>> the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were >>>>>>>>>>> (misplaced but >>>>>>>>>>> damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden >>>>>>>>>>> agendas >>>>>>>>>>> or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So >>>>>>>>>>> whereas the >>>>>>>>>>> original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, >>>>>>>>>>> pressure to >>>>>>>>>>> adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us >>>>>>>>>>> investing >>>>>>>>>>> a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and >>>>>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>>>> As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't >>>>>>>>>>> motivated to >>>>>>>>>>> engage in these new processes, indicating that the more >>>>>>>>>>> lightweight >>>>>>>>>>> structure had probably been better. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate >>>>>>>>>>> Best Bits, >>>>>>>>>>> even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>> there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit >>>>>>>>>>> Prostasia >>>>>>>>>>> Foundation now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>>>>>>>>>> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>>>>>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at malcolm.id.au Mon Mar 4 16:50:19 2019 From: jeremy at malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:50:19 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] IGF workshop proposal form released Message-ID: <48ab65e3-1a7a-fbc4-7003-ee1e6ddaee22@malcolm.id.au> Please find below the link to the workshop proposal form for the 2019 IGF meeting in Berlin: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-call-for-workshop-proposals-0 The deadline is 12 April 2019 23:59 UTC. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Social entrepreneur, lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Mar 6 10:02:16 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 15:02:16 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Survey on the future of Bestbits: Have your say! (Previously "Important:Merging Bestbits with IGC")) In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear all, We've received a useful number of responses but it would be great to hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. If you could fill out the survey by COB this Friday that would be much appreciated. http://bestbits.net/ limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ index&sid=528319 I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to decide next steps next week. Thank you! Best Sheetal. On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you to those who > have responded already. > > The survey is still open so please do lend your views if you can, by using > the link below. The survey responses will feed into the next set of > discussions on the future of Bestbits. > > http://bestbits.net/ > > limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ > > index&sid=528319 > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please see a survey below >> to gather your views on the future of Bestbits. Following a call on >> February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as members of IGC, it was >> agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather views of all members. >> >> The survey is preceded by a background information note which includes a >> summary of the discussions so far, and links to the summaries of calls. >> >> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >> >> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited to complete the >> survey. To inform future discussions in a timely way, please complete the >> survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any questions at all, don't >> hesitate to get in touch. >> >> Looking forward to hearing your views! >> >> Best >> >> Sheetal. >> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thank you to those who participated in the call yesterday. For those who >>> couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list of participants and notes >>> here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>> >>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward for Bestbits, >>> building on the previous conversation in December and the discussion on >>> this thread since. >>> >>> In essence, there was general agreement that both Bestbits and IGC have >>> been facing challenges in fulfilling their objectives, particularly when it >>> comes to coordination and we agreed to circulate a survey to both lists to >>> gather perspectives on four suggested ways forward which were discussed on >>> the call. It was suggested that this survey with the broader communities >>> feed into a decision on the future of the platforms. The survey will be >>> circulated shortly to both lists shortly, and your participation would be >>> greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next steps is this >>>> coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. The full details are >>>> included in my previous email and I've updated the etherpad >>>> with those >>>> planning to attend. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for filling out the doodle! It seems the best time for the >>>>> call is* 4-6 PM UTC on February 11*. The full details of the call, >>>>> including how to join, are below. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to Farzaneh for setting up the room. Looking forward to >>>>> speaking to as many of you as possible on the 11th! >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> *Bestbits call: Future pathways * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Date and time: * >>>>> 11 February, 4:00-6:00 PM UTC >>>>> >>>>> *Online Meeting room: * >>>>> To join the Meeting: >>>>> https://bluejeans.com/819760256 >>>>> >>>>> To join via Room System: >>>>> Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or-199.48.152.152 >>>>> Meeting ID : 819760256 >>>>> >>>>> To join via phone : >>>>> 1) Dial: >>>>> +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>> +1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free) >>>>> +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>> (see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers) >>>>> >>>>> 2) Enter Conference ID : 819760256 >>>>> >>>>> Please note that if you call in, your phone number will appear on the >>>>> Bluejeans room page. We would like to record and share the link with the >>>>> BestBits network on the mailing list. Please let us know if you do not want >>>>> the recording to be shared on an open mailing list if you call in. >>>>> >>>>> *Proposed agenda: * >>>>> *Aim: *to discuss the future of the Bestbits and IGC lists, including >>>>> the possibility of a merger + other options >>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>> network >>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>> new/maintenance of status quo - using lists as information sharing devices: >>>>> pros and cons of each >>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making >>>>> regarding future of the lists >>>>> >>>>> *RSVP on etherpad* >>>>> I've put the agenda in this pad >>>>> and I've also >>>>> added the names of those who indicated they were available for the call at >>>>> this time. Of course, as a Bestbits member you can join the call without >>>>> indicating that in the pad, this is just to have a vague idea of numbers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 14:13, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> It's been great to see the engagement on this topic, and thanks to >>>>>> those who have shared their perspectives and the relevant documents too. >>>>>> >>>>>> In December when we had the call we agreed to touch base again in the >>>>>> middle of January to agree a way forward. The discussions here provide rich >>>>>> ground for the discussion, and Farzaneh has kindly offered to set up a >>>>>> conference call space for us. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am circulating below a doodle for our second call to decide next >>>>>> steps. This is a suggested agenda: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>> network >>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo, e.g using lists as information sharing >>>>>> devices: pros and cons of each approach >>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making >>>>>> regarding future of Bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> Having spoken to those who arranged the last call, we suggest only >>>>>> Bestbits members are invited but that we also reach out to some IGC folks >>>>>> to help provide some background and inform the discussion only. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/yzmbvibwp6n4s976 >>>>>> >>>>>> If everyone could fill out the doodle by the end of next week >>>>>> (Friday, 25 Jan) we can set a time and send the conference room link too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, Deirdre Williams < >>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Please excuse the cross-posting. >>>>>>> I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple of >>>>>>> questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are saying. >>>>>>> 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing >>>>>>> things/ working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging >>>>>>> the two groups again really improve participation? >>>>>>> 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what we >>>>>>> want to do, how we want to do it? >>>>>>> 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC and >>>>>>> Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same >>>>>>> priorities? >>>>>>> Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we would >>>>>>> make much progress. >>>>>>> Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us >>>>>>> also belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying >>>>>>> volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. >>>>>>> Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a >>>>>>> common voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to >>>>>>> devise something different? >>>>>>> Best wishes for 2019 >>>>>>> Deirdre >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of >>>>>>>> Bestbits - >>>>>>>> > could you share more information about how it was constituted and >>>>>>>> why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, and >>>>>>>> people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been >>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>> agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT was >>>>>>>> coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was >>>>>>>> important, >>>>>>>> so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of IGC >>>>>>>> resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were (misplaced >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden >>>>>>>> agendas >>>>>>>> or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So whereas >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, >>>>>>>> pressure to >>>>>>>> adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us >>>>>>>> investing >>>>>>>> a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and >>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>> As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't motivated to >>>>>>>> engage in these new processes, indicating that the more lightweight >>>>>>>> structure had probably been better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate Best >>>>>>>> Bits, >>>>>>>> even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like to >>>>>>>> give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit Prostasia >>>>>>>> Foundation now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>>>>>>> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com Mon Mar 11 00:36:32 2019 From: amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com (Amrita) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:06:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Policy and IG Updates of February 2019 from the Indian Perspective References: <001e01d4bdd4$087e7a50$197b6ef0$@com> Message-ID: <005d01d4d7c4$03c8f350$0b5ad9f0$@com> Hi, Apologies for cross posting. For those who may be interested, read about the IG events and policy developments in February, from the Indian perspective, curated by CCAOI using this link . Regards Amrita -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Wed Mar 13 03:35:32 2019 From: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net (parminder (via bestbits Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:05:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Research position at the ILO Message-ID: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net> I was at a meeting at the ILO earlier this month, and they asked to circulate this position on relevant elists... parminder The position will contribute to the research programme on innovation, digital technologies and decent work. This area of research explores changes in production processes, production structure, productivity and wage growth, changes in job profile and skills needs, among others as a result of innovations and digital technologies, and how it impacts economic, social and labour market outcomes at both the micro and macro level. It will also evaluate working conditions, the role of unions and social dialogue, and employment legislations in the changing world of work. The research programme will analyse the issues from a multidisciplinary lens including gender perspective using mixed methods approach with the aim of developing policy objectives to achieve more equitable outcomes. The position requires a strong ability to conceptualise, analyse using innovative methods and techniques and convey the main findings of the work in a clear, succinct manner to a non-technical audience. It also includes building external networks with researchers, academic and policy-oriented institutions to engage them in the department's work and contribute to developing research proposals.   You can access the job opening in the following link below: https://jobs.ilo.org/job/Geneva-Research-Officer-1200/513495501/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Wed Mar 13 04:26:10 2019 From: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net (parminder (via bestbits Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:56:10 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Research position at the ILO In-Reply-To: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net> References: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <273659b2-7e31-36a5-3f62-b6574f851cc1@itforchange.net> PL ignore the earlier email... It seems that ILO either filled up the post or changed their mind since when they sent it to me for circulation about a week back. The link now says the position is no longer open..parminder On 13/03/19 1:05 PM, parminder wrote: > > I was at a meeting at the ILO earlier this month, and they asked to > circulate this position on relevant elists... parminder > > > The position will contribute to the research programme on innovation, > digital technologies and decent work. This area of research explores > changes in production processes, production structure, productivity > and wage growth, changes in job profile and skills needs, among others > as a result of innovations and digital technologies, and how it > impacts economic, social and labour market outcomes at both the micro > and macro level. It will also evaluate working conditions, the role of > unions and social dialogue, and employment legislations in the > changing world of work. The research programme will analyse the issues > from a multidisciplinary lens including gender perspective using mixed > methods approach with the aim of developing policy objectives to > achieve more equitable outcomes. The position requires a strong > ability to conceptualise, analyse using innovative methods and > techniques and convey the main findings of the work in a clear, > succinct manner to a non-technical audience. It also includes building > external networks with researchers, academic and policy-oriented > institutions to engage them in the department's work and contribute to > developing research proposals. > >   > > You can access the job opening in the following link below: > > https://jobs.ilo.org/job/Geneva-Research-Officer-1200/513495501/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Mar 13 06:34:26 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 06:34:26 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Research position at the ILO In-Reply-To: <273659b2-7e31-36a5-3f62-b6574f851cc1@itforchange.net> References: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net> <273659b2-7e31-36a5-3f62-b6574f851cc1@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, By coincidence I went to a party of some of my rock music friends at Xmas, and ran into an old associate who is now a big cheese at the ILO. He clued me in a bit on their current efforts on their Centenary to come to terms with the Digital Economy. They were just about to launch a report at this NYC event. https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/new-world-of-work Alas I was otherwise engaged that day, but there is a livestream https://youtu.be/GK7L3-wV2fo More By the numbers: 'Work for a brighter future' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksTaeGJ9LoU Work for a brighter future – Global Commission on the Future of Work https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_662410.pdf joly -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Mar 13 06:51:48 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 06:51:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: World Wide Web 30th Anniversary Celebrations Message-ID: 30 years! Time just flies when you're having fun! This is a restream of the two events in Geneva and London yesterday, with some fixing of sync and levels. . London featured a surprise appearance by the city's Mayor. And even royalty have shown interest in Sir Tim's NeXT. [image: livestream] In 1989 the world’s largest physics laboratory, *CERN *, was a hive of ideas and information stored on multiple incompatible computers. *Sir Tim Berners-Lee* envisioned a unifying structure for linking information across different computers, and wrote a proposal in March 1989 called "*Information Management: A Proposal *". By 1991 this vision of universal connectivity had become the World Wide Web. To celebrate 30 years since Sir Tim Berners-Lee's proposal and to kick-start a series of celebrations worldwide, CERN hosted a *30th Anniversary event * in the morning of 12 March 2019 in partnership with the *World Wide Web Consortium * (W3C) and with the *World Wide Web Foundation *. Later in the day the *Science Museum * in London, the home of *the original NeXT Computer *used by Sir Tim to design the World Wide Web, ran a *second event *, also in partnership with the World Wide Web Foundation. Sir Tim spoke at both events, and both will be restreamed in full today* Wednesday 13 March* on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *, starting at *09:00 EDT* (13:00 UTC). *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM*: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/web30 (No captions) CERN GENEVA *Welcome and Introduction* - Welcome by *Anna Cook* - master of ceremonies - Opening talk by *Fabiola Gianotti* - CERN Director General *Let’s Share What We Know* - panel discussion - Chair: *Frédéric Donck* - Speakers: *Tim Berners-Lee*, *Robert Cailliau*, *Jean-François Groff*, *Lou Montulli*, *Zeynep Tufekci* *For Everyone *- conversation - Sir *Tim Berners-Lee* and *Bruno Giussani* *Towards the Future* - panel discussion - Chair:* Bruno Giussani* - Speakers: *Doreen Bogdan-Martin*, *Jovan Kurbalija*, *Monique Morrow*, *Zeynep Tufekci* *Closing Remarks* - *Charlotte Warakaulle* - CERN Director for International Relations *PHOTOS*: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2665683 SCIENCE MUSEUM LONDON - *Imogen Heap* — Grammy Award-winning singer, songwriter and producer. - *Matt Brittin* — President, EMEA Business & Operations at Google - *Roya Mahboob* — The NewNow Leader, Tech Entrepreneur & Women’s Rights Activist - *Taylor Wilson* — The NewNow Leader, Nuclear Physicist, Science Advocate & Inventor - *Dr. Anne-Marie Imafido*n MBE — Technology thought leader and founder and CEO of STEMettes - *Sadiq Khan*, Mayor of London - *Sir Tim Berners-Lee* in conversation with BBC journalist *Samira Ahmed* *TWITTER*: #web30 https://bit.ly/web30tweets *Permalink* https://isoc.live/10969/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Mar 14 09:43:19 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:43:19 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Survey on the future of Bestbits: Have your say! (Previously "Important:Merging Bestbits with IGC")) In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I have attached the anonymised results as a text document, with a summary included at the top in case useful. As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first half spent discussing the results and suggesting a way forward (45 minutes-1 hour) and the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC founders and other key members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate call too. The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to find a way to promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to change the current state of affairs. I hope that they help in finding a way forward which does this and in so doing, responds to the widest possible range of opinion. Should you have any other suggestions on how to proceed, please do chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle for a follow up call. Thanks again. Best Sheetal. On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > We've received a useful number of responses but it would be great to hear > from more people about the future of Bestbits. If you could fill out the > survey by COB this Friday that would be much appreciated. > > http://bestbits.net/ > > limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ > > index&sid=528319 > > I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to decide next steps > next week. > > Thank you! > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you to those who >> have responded already. >> >> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if you can, by >> using the link below. The survey responses will feed into the next set of >> discussions on the future of Bestbits. >> >> http://bestbits.net/ >> >> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >> >> index&sid=528319 >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please see a survey >>> below to gather your views on the future of Bestbits. Following a call on >>> February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as members of IGC, it was >>> agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather views of all members. >>> >>> The survey is preceded by a background information note which includes a >>> summary of the discussions so far, and links to the summaries of calls. >>> >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>> >>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited to complete >>> the survey. To inform future discussions in a timely way, please complete >>> the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any questions at all, don't >>> hesitate to get in touch. >>> >>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call yesterday. For those >>>> who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list of participants and >>>> notes here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>> >>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward for Bestbits, >>>> building on the previous conversation in December and the discussion on >>>> this thread since. >>>> >>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both Bestbits and IGC have >>>> been facing challenges in fulfilling their objectives, particularly when it >>>> comes to coordination and we agreed to circulate a survey to both lists to >>>> gather perspectives on four suggested ways forward which were discussed on >>>> the call. It was suggested that this survey with the broader communities >>>> feed into a decision on the future of the platforms. The survey will be >>>> circulated shortly to both lists shortly, and your participation would be >>>> greatly appreciated. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next steps is this >>>>> coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. The full details are >>>>> included in my previous email and I've updated the etherpad >>>>> with those >>>>> planning to attend. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for filling out the doodle! It seems the best time for the >>>>>> call is* 4-6 PM UTC on February 11*. The full details of the call, >>>>>> including how to join, are below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to Farzaneh for setting up the room. Looking forward to >>>>>> speaking to as many of you as possible on the 11th! >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Bestbits call: Future pathways * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Date and time: * >>>>>> 11 February, 4:00-6:00 PM UTC >>>>>> >>>>>> *Online Meeting room: * >>>>>> To join the Meeting: >>>>>> https://bluejeans.com/819760256 >>>>>> >>>>>> To join via Room System: >>>>>> Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or-199.48.152.152 >>>>>> Meeting ID : 819760256 >>>>>> >>>>>> To join via phone : >>>>>> 1) Dial: >>>>>> +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>>> +1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free) >>>>>> +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>>> (see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Enter Conference ID : 819760256 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that if you call in, your phone number will appear on the >>>>>> Bluejeans room page. We would like to record and share the link with the >>>>>> BestBits network on the mailing list. Please let us know if you do not want >>>>>> the recording to be shared on an open mailing list if you call in. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Proposed agenda: * >>>>>> *Aim: *to discuss the future of the Bestbits and IGC lists, >>>>>> including the possibility of a merger + other options >>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>> network >>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo - using lists as information sharing devices: >>>>>> pros and cons of each >>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making >>>>>> regarding future of the lists >>>>>> >>>>>> *RSVP on etherpad* >>>>>> I've put the agenda in this pad >>>>>> and I've also >>>>>> added the names of those who indicated they were available for the call at >>>>>> this time. Of course, as a Bestbits member you can join the call without >>>>>> indicating that in the pad, this is just to have a vague idea of numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 14:13, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's been great to see the engagement on this topic, and thanks to >>>>>>> those who have shared their perspectives and the relevant documents too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In December when we had the call we agreed to touch base again in >>>>>>> the middle of January to agree a way forward. The discussions here provide >>>>>>> rich ground for the discussion, and Farzaneh has kindly offered to set up a >>>>>>> conference call space for us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am circulating below a doodle for our second call to decide next >>>>>>> steps. This is a suggested agenda: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each >>>>>>> network >>>>>>> 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of >>>>>>> new/maintenance of status quo, e.g using lists as information sharing >>>>>>> devices: pros and cons of each approach >>>>>>> 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making >>>>>>> regarding future of Bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Having spoken to those who arranged the last call, we suggest only >>>>>>> Bestbits members are invited but that we also reach out to some IGC folks >>>>>>> to help provide some background and inform the discussion only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/yzmbvibwp6n4s976 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If everyone could fill out the doodle by the end of next week >>>>>>> (Friday, 25 Jan) we can set a time and send the conference room link too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, Deirdre Williams < >>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please excuse the cross-posting. >>>>>>>> I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple of >>>>>>>> questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are saying. >>>>>>>> 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing >>>>>>>> things/ working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging >>>>>>>> the two groups again really improve participation? >>>>>>>> 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what we >>>>>>>> want to do, how we want to do it? >>>>>>>> 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC and >>>>>>>> Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same >>>>>>>> priorities? >>>>>>>> Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we would >>>>>>>> make much progress. >>>>>>>> Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us >>>>>>>> also belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying >>>>>>>> volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. >>>>>>>> Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a >>>>>>>> common voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to >>>>>>>> devise something different? >>>>>>>> Best wishes for 2019 >>>>>>>> Deirdre >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of >>>>>>>>> Bestbits - >>>>>>>>> > could you share more information about how it was constituted >>>>>>>>> and why? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been >>>>>>>>> able to >>>>>>>>> agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT was >>>>>>>>> coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was >>>>>>>>> important, >>>>>>>>> so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of >>>>>>>>> IGC >>>>>>>>> resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were (misplaced >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden >>>>>>>>> agendas >>>>>>>>> or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So >>>>>>>>> whereas the >>>>>>>>> original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, >>>>>>>>> pressure to >>>>>>>>> adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us >>>>>>>>> investing >>>>>>>>> a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and >>>>>>>>> processes. >>>>>>>>> As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't motivated >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> engage in these new processes, indicating that the more lightweight >>>>>>>>> structure had probably been better. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate Best >>>>>>>>> Bits, >>>>>>>>> even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like to >>>>>>>>> give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit Prostasia >>>>>>>>> Foundation now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>>>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>>>>>>>> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>>>>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary of Bestbits survey on the future of bestbits.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 22343 bytes Desc: not available URL: