<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Dear Anja<br>
<br>
I have no problems with your framing below. However, the points I
raised are somewhat different. Let me clarify them.<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 04 September 2013 01:18
AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear Parminder and all,<br>
<br>
I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.<br>
<br>
</div>
1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10
are kept in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items,
and that we spend some time discussing and planning for
the processes around them. To my mind, these are among the
most important places where states at present are already
trying to play out their views on enhanced cooperation in
practice, with rather important consequences for civil
society (I wrote about this earlier here:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/"
target="_blank">http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/</a>).
In general, they are also two processes that are likely to
have a real outcome for Internet governance. It is
important that civil society is aware and informed, and
that at least some of us are also closely involved (the
ITU also happens to be the process around which Best Bits
came into its own, and I think it would be foolish of us
to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we
have made).<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I did not say we should not discuss ITU or WSIS. I said we should
discuss all places where global Internet policy making actually
takes place, in the order of intensity of actual processes and
outcomes for the global Internet, rather than be fixated on forum A
of forum B. You would agree that this should be how the civil
society looks at things. I argued that the OECD's CCICP is a major
forum for global policy making at present. And therefore that venue,
its outcomes and processes should also be discussed. That is my
point.<br>
<br>
I also offered proof, if it were needed, to show that OECD is a
major forum for global policy making. Submissions by ISOC, ICC and
many developed countries to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation say so
(while they hardly mention WSIS +10 or ITU). OECD has the only
globally operative set of Principles for Internet Policy Making,
which have real weight and implication. They are right now being
pushed for global implementation. In fact US's contribution speaks
about ' extension of OECD Principles more globally'. And I also
mentioned the <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-%E2%80%94-european-capability-situational-awareness">new
global program ECSA</a> to implement one element of these OECD
principles. <br>
<br>
Does it leave any doubt as to where a big part of global Internet
policy making is taking place? Why should civil society also not
focus on this forum of global Internet policy making? This was my
question. Sure do discuss ITU and WSIS +10 (which developed
countries are intent should not take place except as an insipid
bureaucratic event) but also discuss OECD's global Internet policy
making. And since ITU plus WSIS plus OECD becomes too long a title,
I just suggested that it be made more general as 'Global Internet
policy making' and have perhaps three sub sections under it. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first
day one long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU
and WSIS in the morning and of multistakeholderism in the
afternoon) is because I believe that the question of how we
see multistakeholderism is sharpened by our engagements in
these concrete policy fora and how we plan to move forward
in them, while at the same time our engagement with these
fora is of course also to some extent determined by the
visions and views we have when we enter them. In that sense
I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS within
those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then
at least in terms of understanding we all take the positions
that we take.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sure, I agree, let the MS session come after the global policy
making session rather than precede it, and be sufficiently
contextualised to the discussions on policy making processes. I
would for instance certainly want to know why civil society does not
recommend IEG model to OECD's Internet policy making processes as it
does for ITU. Or alternatively, why does it not recommend OECD's
CCICP's stakeholder participation processes, with which the involved
civil society seems fairly satisfied, to ITU rather than the IEG
model (which I really dont fully understand, and to the extend I do,
do not see it as a great model). <br>
<br>
What I want is a fullish discussion - which starts on this list -
about what different people and groups really understand by MSism in
policy processes, and how do they ideally see it play out and
implemented. I, for instance, really dont now what would your ideal
policy development mechanism look like? And so about many others
here.... I repeat, that is the major areas of lack of understanding
among us here, and it is best that we can at least agree on the
technical meaning of terms, as we individually may seek to apply
them. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid
civil society not only in having important discussions, but
also in getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for
our two days in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our
outcomes on both counts. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am always for concrete outcomes, that go in concrete directions.
So, I agree... From the MS discussion, lets try to get to some
principles of what we think MSism is, and how it should actually be
applied in policy making, and policy deliberations and
consultations. And how MS representation should be constituted.
That would be a singular contribution to the area of global
governance of the Internet. And from the earlier discussion on
global Internet policy making spaces, we can have an outcome in
terms what should civil society do in each case, and what are the
dangers and what are the opportunities...<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<br>
</div>
Best regards,<br>
Anja<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 September 2013 22:27, parminder <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="im"> <br>
<div>On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:16 PM, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> <font face="Verdana">Jeremy<br>
<br>
My impression was that just a draft of </font><font
face="Verdana">the program</font><font
face="Verdana"> has been put forward and it has
still to go through discussions and approval of the
group before finalisation.. Is my impression right?<br>
<br>
On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I
really think we should have at least a full half
session on what really is multistakeholderism. And
that subject alone. I really am not sure what most
people here think it is . There is this silence zone
around its theory and practice. I have raised the
question often. I think if there is one difference
that groups like IT for Change have with many other
groups in the IG space, it is about an understanding
of MSism... And while there can be real political
differences, I dont see why we should have such
technical differences, just on the meaning and
understanding of terms. Lets try to thrash it out
forever. And we can start this discussion here
itself, on this list. Importantly, I saw strong
support on this list for a specific discussion on
what is MSism. I think these views should be
respected. <br>
<br>
I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to
rather on Public policy making on global IG.... The
responses to questionaire issued by the WG on
enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many
developing countries</font></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<font face="Verdana">sorry, i meant developed countries<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Verdana"> cite OECD
as one important place where global Internet policy
making takes place. At least now can we take it that
indeed a lot of Internet policy making takes place
in OECD. (See the posting today on the IGC list
declaring a project implementing - globally - some
parts of the OECD Principles for Internet Policy
Making). why do we only keep asking questions of UN
based Internet policy processes, and not from places
where some real policy making takes place.... We
should discuss OECD's *global* Internet policy
making processes as well. And if we want the IEG
(Informal Experts Group) as the standard model by
which ITU whould do its Internet related polciy
work, why do we hesitate to tell OECD that it should
use the same model, and none else.... What I
suggesting here is - Name this session - Where does
global Internet policy making take place, how, and
what should CS do. <br>
<br>
Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why
are we not ready to to name session three directly
as NSA or Snowden issue (something stated a little
better). The world thinks that global IG has changed
forever because of what Snowden has told us about
NSA.... That is not just the regular surveillance
issue, that we have been talking in all IGFs and
should keep doing. There is a clear Snowden impact
on the global Internet - a huge impact. And we need
to specifically discuss what this impact is, and how
US has to be confronted in its (still largely
unapologetic) global surveillance. That is a
specific issue. And Again I saw great support for
discussing this particular issue at length, but in
the current draft this issue seem to be hidden as
about one sixth of a session, that too without
mentioning the main actors, NSA, US gov and Snowden.
<br>
<br>
thanks. parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div>On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy
Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font
face="Verdana">Fully support this. Lets give
one full day to this...<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(Sorry for the delayed response, I've been
travelling until my return to the office
today.) We don't have one full day available
for this at the Best Bits meeting, unless we
take out other things that people want to do,
but I've added this as a sub-item to the draft
agenda for Bali for the Day 1 morning, under the
rather broad heading "Global Internet governance
principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".<br>
<br>
Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as
facilitators of that session, you can guide us
in suggesting the appropriate emphasis between
sub-topics for discussion. Most surely, we
could spend a full week rather than two days if
we were to cover everything in the depth it
deserves.<br>
<br>
I'll also follow up directly with the two of you
(and the steering committee, and separately the
other nominated facilitators) about this.
Meanwhile I'm working on getting the
registration system going, and Access are
working on crowd funding for those who need
support to participate.<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div
style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-spacing:0px">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-spacing:0px">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-spacing:0px">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="font-style:normal;font-size:medium;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">-- </span><br
style="">
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal"><b>Dr
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy
Officer<br>
Consumers
International |
the global
campaigning
voice for
consumers</b><br>
Office for
Asia-Pacific and
the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM,
7 Jalan Abang Haji
Openg, TTDI, 60000
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726
1599</p>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal"><span
style="">Explore
our new Resource
Zone - the
global consumer
movement
knowledge hub |</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone"
style=""
target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a></p>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">@Consumers_Int
| <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational"
target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-style:normal;font-size:8pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">Read
our <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email
confidentiality
notice</a>.
Don't print this
email unless
necessary.</p>
<p style=""><font
color="#ff2600"><b>WARNING</b></font><span
style="font-style:normal;font-size:medium;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">:
This email has
not been
encrypted. You
are strongly
recommended to
enable PGP or
S/MIME
encryption at
your end. For
instructions,
see </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://jere.my/l/8m"
title="https://luxsci.com/blog/installing-smime-and-pgp-encryption-certificates-into-major-email-clients.html"
rel="nofollow
external"
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal"
target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/8m</a><span
style="font-style:normal;font-size:medium;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">.</span></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>