<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">I dont see any reason to move this important
global Internet issue from this platform to another...... CSISAC
engages with the OECD's Internet policy making system from within,
largely accepting the legitimacy of its structure as it is.... The
critique of the structure and its ambition itself must come from
outside, and BB is the best forum for that.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, most prominent CISSAC members, which includes APC, are
on this list - if they agree to take up this issue in the CSISAC,
maybe we can go there. But I see no such enthusiasm, which doesnt
give me much confidence that it will fly inside the CSISAC. But if
you think CSISAC is likely to take up the two point agenda that I
propose, I am ready to hear your views. And also of other
prominent CSISAC members here.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 04 September 2013 07:50
PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:522741A6.5050608@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree with Anja on the OECD issue..
What I think we should do is for Parminder's suggestion on the OECD to
go to CSISAC - so for you to make that proposal in CSISAC and for CSISAC
to take it up.
I don't think Best Bits should do it directly.. more effective to do it
through CSISAC.
Anriette
On 04/09/2013 16:13, Anja Kovacs wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To make my position more concrete: I do not think that as an initiative
from the developing world, we undermine the march forward of the OECD in
any way by signing a letter addressed to them. On the contrary, that only
gives them greater legitimacy. Those who are from member states could do
so, but as far as the rest of us are concerned, I think what we need to do
is boycott.
Best,
Anja
On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Parminder and all...
Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in Bali?
That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us work a
bit faster.
Apologies for not being able to volunteer.
Anriette
On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all
Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
Avri and Anja are proposing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one subjects
- ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
but it is still a good start).
Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
ways?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent civil
society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
subject in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Anriette
On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all,
I concur with Anja and Avri.
Valeria
On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I think this is a good framing. The only thing I would recommend
adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
in the following days.
avri
On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
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:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/">http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/</a>).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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).
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.
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.
Best regards,
Anja
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>