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

Norbert Bollow nb at bollow.ch
Sat Jan 11 11:13:45 UTC 2014

FYI... I have just posted the message below on the IGC mailing list,
announcing that I will try to lead a process to create a proposal for
the substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM.

While I intend to try for this document to reach IGC consensus (hence
the discussion is going to be primarily on the IGC mailing list), I'd
like to invite everyone else --not limited to persons who engage
primarily as “civil society”-- to participate in the consensus process
for this proposal. If you're not on the IGC list but interested in
participating, please let me know, and I'll make sure that you're
explicitly Cc'd.


Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:

Datum: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:00:45 +0100
Von: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
An: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Betreff: Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re:
Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net)

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.


More information about the discuss mailing list