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

Thu Jan 16 10:06:06 EST 2014

In order to kick off the discussion, here's an initial, quite rough,
draft of one possible idea:

Greetings,
Norbert

--snip--------------------------------------------------------------
This document aims to propose a set of broadly acceptable processes for
handling substantive inputs to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on
the Future of Internet Governance.

According to the website http://brmeeting.br/ the meeting will “focus
on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for
the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.”

Since the time for substantive preparatory processes is so short, it
may be appropriate to further focus the planned meeting on gathering
requirements and concerns in regard to Internet governance principles
and the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, from
various perspectives, and to build a shared understanding of what the
various perspectives on this are.

If this objective is adopted, appropriate processes for handling
substantive inputs could include the following:

 *  Communicate (as early as possible) an invitation to provide input
    documents on gathering requirements and concerns, from various
    perspectives.

 *  Assemble a working group tasked with compiling these substantive
    inputs into a comprehensiove report.

 *  After March 1, the deadline for submitting substantive
    contributions. the working group will draft a report on
    requirements and concerns, noting which points require further
    clarification.

 *  Each contributor is given the opportunity to double-check that
    their contribution is reflected appropriately.

 *  Requests for changes / corrections which contributors have
    submitted are processed.

 *  The working group for the substantive report tries to identify what
    are the open points that need to be resolved before the report can
    be adopted as describing a shared understanding of what the various
    perspectives on this are.

 *  At the beginning of the MSM itself, the list of “open points that
    need to be resolved” can be added to by any participant.

 *  The rest of the first day of the MSM is used for breakout sessions
    attempting to achieve consensus resolutions for the various open
    points.

 *  The second day is used for plenary sessions in which resolution
    proposals are presented and hopefully consensus is achieved.

--snap--------------------------------------------------------------

Am Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:00:10 +0100
schrieb Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:

> Dear all
> 
> After a bit more delay than I had hoped, I'm now ready to start woking
> on a proposal document on substantive discourse processes for the
> Brazil MSM...
> 
> I have set up a wiki as a workspace for this, please be bold in
> editing
> http://digital-age.info/wiki/Brazil_2014_proposal_on_substantive_processes
> and pages that you create, linking them from there.
> 
> Hopefully we will be able to identify at least one reasonable way in
> which substantive inputs can be handled, a way that will be seen as
> acceptable from a broad variety of perspectives (not limited to civil
> society perspectives).
> 
> I think that what ways for handling substantive inputs are reasonable
> will depend to a significant extent on assumptions about the
> objectives of the MSM, which haven't been decided yet. It might be the
> best approach to make several proposals on the basis of several
> possibilities for how the objectives of the meeting can be defined.
> 
> In any case, let's get going!
> 
> The following three people (who are not subscribers to the IGC mailing
> list) have requested to be Cc'd:
>  
> Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
> Daniel Iga Mwesigwa <daniel.igamwesigwa2003 at gmail.com>
> Birgitta Jónsdóttir <birgitta at this.is>
> 
> Please keep them listed in Cc over the course of this discussion.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:00:45 +0100
> schrieb Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
> 
> > 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