<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><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 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 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 href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
executive director, association for progressive communications<br>
<a 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 href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>