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

[Norbert Bollow]

Many thanks to Richard for his comments on the questions that I had
raised.

I've added two notes at the end which are inspired by Richard's
response (see below).

I had hoped that there would be significant discussion, and on the
basis of that, a consensus process on this submission. It is not a
problem from my perspective however to provide this input as an
individual submission. Alternatively, if someone is interested in
co-signing this, please let me know by tonight 23.00 UTC.

Greetings,
Norbert

--snip-------------------------------------------------------------

Submission on substantive discourse processes

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 comprehensive 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.

Notes:

1. In terms of style requirements on the submissions, a necessary
and maybe sufficient rule is that ad hominem attacks, insults, etc.
must not be allowed.

2. The fundamental model for developing the output document would be
the "single text" approach: there is one document, and anybody is
free to propose changes to it.  The changes are discussed and agreed
or not. The starting point for this process is an empty document.


Respectfully submitted
with all the best wishes

Norbert Bollow, Swiss Open Systems User Group

-------------- 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