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

Thu Jan 16 10:13:47 EST 2014

OK for me, and thank you very much for your great thoughts and hard work.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch]
> Sent: jeudi, 16. janvier 2014 16:06
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Cc: rhill; Daniel IGA MWESIGWA; Birgitta Jónsdóttir
> Subject: Re: [governance] Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil
> MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net)
> 
> 
> 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