<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 04 September 2013 07:43
PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry for the extreme example, but sometimes they have an
elucidative role; that would be like, in another era (though not
fully bygone), refusing to oppose the British rule in India because
we dont want to legitimise it by engaging with it even to the extent
of opposing it.... This is also a bit strange in my estimate , in
the background that BestBits have recently written to at least two
different organs of the US state urging them to see if they could
behave themselves a bit, petitions which i understand were signed by
you.... <br>
<br>
I cant see how a letter to OECD on the lines that I propose would
give OECD larger legitimacy, when we are writing to tell them that
(1) *they do not have global legitimacy*, and (2) that they are
rather hypocritical in proposing MS models that they themselves dont
practice, Can you please explain how such a letter increases OECD's
legitimacy if the letter BestBits wrote to the US state did not
serve to increase US's legitimacy regarding its overlordship over
the global Internet. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
Best,<br>
</div>
Anja<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette
Esterhuysen <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear
Parminder and all...<br>
<br>
Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise
the<br>
surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that,
and<br>
discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our
meeting in Bali?<br>
<br>
That would cover some stuff that started prior to the
Snowden<br>
revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might
help us work a<br>
bit faster.<br>
<br>
Apologies for not being able to volunteer.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Anriette<br>
</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette
Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
>> Dear all<br>
>><br>
>> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not
following the discussion<br>
>> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss
is looking at how to<br>
>> build specific mechanisms to address specific
problems rather than<br>
>> always focusing on general problems/processes.
I think this is also what<br>
>> Avri and Anja are proposing.<br>
><br>
> I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building
specific mechanisms<br>
> to address specific problems. She only discussed
the day one subjects<br>
> - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .<br>
> On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing
on the specific<br>
> problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......<br>
>><br>
>> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have
written some letters; we<br>
>> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies;
there is a civil society<br>
>> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not
everyone agrees on fully,<br>
>> but it is still a good start).<br>
>><br>
>> Can we not take this particular issue and look
at what concrete<br>
>> mechanisms and measures we can propose to
address it in quite specific<br>
>> ways?<br>
><br>
> Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review
what we have done<br>
> till present and what else is necessary... As for
the the recent civil<br>
> society guidelines on privacy, there is a good
discussion on this<br>
> subject in the IRP list, and that too should be
carried forward.<br>
><br>
> parminder<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Anriette<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:<br>
>>> Hi all,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I concur with Anja and Avri.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Valeria<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think this is a good framing. The
only thing I would recommend<br>
>>>> adding to the specific aims, is
preparation for the IGF itself -<br>
>>>> specific action/statement for the
sessions and workshops to be held<br>
>>>> in the following days.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> avri<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs
wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my
thinking on two issues.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1. I believe it is very important
that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept<br>
>>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused
agenda items, and that we spend<br>
>>>>> some time discussing and planning
for the processes around them. To<br>
>>>>> my mind, these are among the most
important places where states at<br>
>>>>> present are already trying to play
out their views on enhanced<br>
>>>>> cooperation in practice, with
rather important consequences for<br>
>>>>> civil society (I wrote about this
earlier<br>
>>>>> 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>).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> In general, they are also two
processes that are likely to have a<br>
>>>>> real outcome for Internet
governance. It is important that civil<br>
>>>>> society is aware and informed, and
that at least some of us are also<br>
>>>>> closely involved (the ITU also
happens to be the process around<br>
>>>>> which Best Bits came into its own,
and I think it would be foolish<br>
>>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever
little inroads or impact we have<br>
>>>>> made).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy
that we make the first day one<br>
>>>>> long session (with perhaps a
discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the<br>
>>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism
in the afternoon) is because I<br>
>>>>> believe that the question of how we
see multistakeholderism is<br>
>>>>> sharpened by our engagements in
these concrete policy fora and how<br>
>>>>> we plan to move forward in them,
while at the same time our<br>
>>>>> engagement with these fora is of
course also to some extent<br>
>>>>> determined by the visions and views
we have when we enter them. In<br>
>>>>> that sense I think that by
contextualising the discussion on MS<br>
>>>>> within those debates, the chances
that we move forward are far<br>
>>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming
to a joint position, then at<br>
>>>>> least in terms of understanding we
all take the positions that we<br>
>>>>> take.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> One of the specific aims of Best
Bits is that it should aid civil<br>
>>>>> society not only in having
important discussions, but also in<br>
>>>>> getting concrete work done. By
framing the agenda for our two days<br>
>>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can
maximise our outcomes on both<br>
>>>>> counts.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Best regards,<br>
>>>>> Anja<br>
>>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">--<br>
------------------------------------------------------<br>
anriette esterhuysen <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
executive director, association for progressive
communications<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.apc.org"
target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
po box 29755, melville 2109<br>
south africa<br>
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<br>
<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>