• What is multi-stakeholderism?
• Stock-taking of current efforts to compile and explicate high-level Internet policy principles at the IGF and the OECD.
• Reporting to and from the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
• Developing a shared civil society position on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements at the global level.
• Priorities for civil society input to particular sessions of the 2013 IGF.
• IGF plus – how an IGF with powers to make soft law recommendations would work in a multi-stakeholder environment.
• Sustainability of the IGF – protecting it from corporate capture, finding a sustainable funding model, reaching out to powerful allies.
• Issues for developing countries access and national internet governance processes, capacity building and best practice among others.

Output: Further submission to the CSTD Working Group on model/s for a new enhanced cooperation framework or mechanism.
Output: Statement to the IGF, MAG, UNDESA, etc about the imperative of addressing funding consistency and transparency and other issues related to the future of the IGF.

• Clearinghouse on Internet governance fora including ITU Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues, Internet Freedom Coalition, London-Budapest-Seoul Conference on Cyberspace.
• Engagement with the ITU’s Council Working Group on Internet Governance.
• Visualisation of Internet governance processes towards WSIS+10.
• What next for the Brazilian proposal on operationalising the role of governments in Internet governance.
• Civil society participation and substantive issues for the ITU Plenipotentiary 2014.
• Civil society participation and substantive issues for the WSIS+10 review and the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform.

Output: (Draft) BB action plan/ strategy for ITU PP and WSIS+10 (or other processes, depending on what the group decides is important). To start with, what are our joint priorities and goals for each process? What counts as a ‘win’ and what counts as a ‘loss’ (what are our red lines)? This can be done both in terms of process and substance.
Output: Setting up task forces based on this action plan and processes by which they would operate in context of the larger BB network.

• Updates on the interventions made so far to the Human Rights Council, US Congress and PCLOB.
• International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance.
• Implications of trends in the range of invasive and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments and then at the strategies for civil society to respond.
• Strategising around pressure points for governments, civil society support for whistleblowers, maintaining public rage.
• Calling on technology companies to embed “human rights defaults” into their technology.
• Working business models or proof of concepts that can present an alternative to big company commodity services like email or
  social networking.
• How competition and consumer protection laws can promote freedom of expression, access to knowledge and privacy.

Output: Action plan for next intervention.

• What are our goals – short presentation and discussion.
• What are the most appropriate structures to accomplish these goals? (Do we require a charter? A steering committee? Incorporation? What level of transparency? How do we interact with other groups?)
• What funding is required to support this, and how, and by whom, should we go about raising it?
• What procedures should we set in place for selecting a steering committee, producing statements, creating working group mailing lists, nominating stakeholder representatives, hosting a Best Bits side-meeting, hosting a Best Bits multi-stakeholder workshop?
• Relationship with other networks and coalitions – presentation from Web We Want
• Launch and demonstration of new website features.

Output: Draft statements of goals and procedures.