[governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net)

[Norbert Bollow]

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would
> very much like to see the Brazil process succeed… I think the
> Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from
> such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing how
> outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from input
> processes such as these.

In my view, so far the processes for soliciting and handling
substantive inputs are still totally undefined, and as I understand
the current set-up, it will be part of the responsibility of the
Executive Committee to ensure that these processes for the
substantive discourse will be good, transparent and accountable.

If that isn't achieved, I will consider the Brazil MSM to be a failure
before it has even started.

But IMO right now there is no reason to be fatalistic about this!!!

I'd suggest that all shortcomings of the processes through which
various committees are populated are significant only if those
shortcomings lead to the MSM not having good, transparent and
accountable processes for the substantive discourse, or to the MSM's
output document not having worthwhile content.

I think that a lot of the criticisms that you Michael and others have
made are valid, but unless the meeting dates are postponed, it is
simply not possible now to reboot the committee selection processes.

Why don't we use the time until the first meeting of the “Executive
Multistakeholder Committee” (Monday, January 27th) to come up with a
proposal for “good, transparent and accountable processes for the
substantive discourse”?

I'm making myself available as editor for such a proposal document.

Ideally this document will be formally adopted by the IGC through a
consensus or rough consensus process; I will certainly conduct the
editing process for this proposal document with the aim of reaching IGC
consensus if possible. If however it turns impossible to reach IGC
consensus, that will not be the end of the idea to create such a
proposal, but rather I would in that case publish the proposal as a
sign-on statement.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t