<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
That's right Parminder.<br>
<br>
To be really precise, what CSISAC was willing to live with was the
principles themselves:<br>
1. Promote and protect the global free flow of information;<br>
2. Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the
Internet;<br>
3. Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and
services;<br>
4. Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services;<br>
5. Encourage multi-stakeholder co-operation in policy development
processes;<br>
6. Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct;<br>
7. Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data
into the policy-making process;<br>
8. Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability;<br>
9. Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at
a global level;<br>
10. Maximise individual empowerment;<br>
11. Promote creativity and innovation;<br>
12. Limit Internet intermediary liability;<br>
13. Encourage co-operation to promote Internet security;<br>
14. Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts.<br>
<br>
which are relatively harmless as extremely high level statements.
What CSISAC rejected was the more detailed explanation of how they
are to be applied. There were many problems with the way the
principles were intended to be applied, relating mostly to
intermediary liability and IPR enforcement.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tamir<br>
<br>
On 12/1/2013 11:00 AM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:529B5D0B.2040304@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Here is a factual account of what
happened
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
One really wonders why we are not able to settle something which
is a simple matter of fact.... Yes, civil society groups did not
initially sign these principles but later signed a latter version
.<br>
<br>
In Dec 2013, if someone says, 'OCED's Internet policy making
principles', what is meant is the final version issues by the
OECD Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is
superseded by the Council document. And civil society groups did
sign the latter Council document .... <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php">http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php</a><br>
<br>
That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which
has got this long thread running...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF887314" style="direction: ltr;"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com">sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com">sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com</a>]
on behalf of Andrea Glorioso [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso; parminder; Dixie Hawtin;
Andrew Puddephatt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal
by the Government of India to the WGEC<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>To be clear: my understanding is that the
statement that CSOs did endorse a set of principles
produced within the OECD was challenged. It seems to me
- and, unless I misinterpret the relevant messages,
confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a
number of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of
OECD principles which was acceptable to them.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again if I understand correctly, the point was not
on the substance of such principles but on the
legitimacy of policy-making done within "restricted"
environments, especially when such principles /
policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well
as, relatedly, on the approach to be taken
towards broader settings. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please note that I'm not taking a position either
on the OECD principles or on the related debate re:
broader settings. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of
the rather small IG circle (which are, according to
some, stakeholders as well) are so clear on the
details of who signed what, when and for which
reason. <br>
<br>
On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC
endorsement was IPR and intermediarities. The
opposition of CISAC to the two principles was ere
outspoken but ignored by an article in the
Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected
later when CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own
position and did not change it. In contrary, as the
statement - re-distributed by Andrea - says clearly,
CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around
the two controvrsial principles with the aim to
improve the lanague and to make it acceptable to
civil society. This OECD debate did influence also
the final stage of the elaboration of the Council of
Europe principles - which was negotiated in
parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD
language and got the full endorsement by all
parties.<br>
<br>
w<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>
Von: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
im Auftrag von Adam Peake<br>
Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07<br>
An: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
Andrea Glorioso<br>
Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt;
<,<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,<br>
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by
the Government of India to the WGEC<br>
<br>
I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't.
Please, just read the documents, it's pretty clear.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:<br>
<br>
> As far as I understood when I used to follow
this process, CSISAC did support a modified version
of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by
those who know more.<br>
><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php"
target="_blank">
http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php</a><br>
><br>
> CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on
Principles for Internet Policy Making<br>
> In a press release published on 19 December
2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on
Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the
OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms
OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive
Internet.<br>
><br>
> Most critically, this Recommendation envisions
a collaborative decision-making process that is
inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such
as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to
support a previous Communique resulting from the
OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011.<br>
><br>
> CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD
in order to develop the Principles itemized in the
December Recommendation in greater detail and in a
manner that promotes openness, is grounded in
respect for human rights and the rule of law, and
strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of
life for all citizens.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM,
Dixie Hawtin wrote:<br>
> >> I've never ever entered these debates
before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!<br>
> >><br>
> >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did
not endorse the principles, on the basis of the
intellectual property rights provision.<br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did
endorse them.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society
(CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory
Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on
Internet policy making (June 2011 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf</a>>)
Read the document.<br>
><br>
> No point in any further discussion, the
document is what it is.<br>
><br>
> Adam<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> > However, I have stayed away from
discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of
OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I
only spoke about their procedural aspects - like
inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral,
etc . That these processes<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. do not involve all countries/
governments, and<br>
> > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more
multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN
based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP
proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> > And the fact that civil society seems
never to bother with this particular problem of
global Internet governance. As for instance we are
fond of regularly writing to ITU about its
processes, and have even started to speak against
proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS
model which was one of the most participatory of
processes that I have ever seen.<br>
> ><br>
> > Can you show me an instance where we have
addressed the above problem of global governance -
something which is a constant refrain in most
discussions of global governance in the South . How
can we simply dismiss this concern.<br>
> ><br>
> > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of
OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up
for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to
be this December). As they renew their mandate, I
propose that we write to them, that<br>
> ><br>
> > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal'
engagement with UN and other regional bodies on
Internet policy issues that really have implications
across the globe, to ensure global democracy.<br>
> > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto
push their policy frameworks on other countries -
if they indeed think/ know that a particular
Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they
should from the start itself take it up at a global
forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it
.<br>
> > 3. CCICP should be made fully
multistakeholder on the same principles of
multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for
global Internet policy related bodies. In this
regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of
different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy
making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or
different than what they > >> Development
House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT<br>
> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771
339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt<br>
> >> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gp-digital.org" target="_blank">gp-digital.org</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> From: parminder [<br>
> >> mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
> >> ]<br>
> >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38<br>
> >> To: Andrew Puddephatt<br>
> >> Cc:<br>
> >> <a moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>;
<,<a moz-do-not-send="true">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>><br>
> >> ,<br>
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re:
[governance] Proposal by the Government of India to
the WGEC<br>
> >><br>
> >> Andrew<br>
> >><br>
> >> I have a strong feeling that you
asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that
is a good thing to do.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Many here in the last few weeks posted
their views on the proceedings of the WGEC,
triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some
of them directly referred by name to positions
presented by me/ my organisation which is also
quite fair because we are all in a public space and
people need to be able to say whatever they want to
(apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam
which is where I think IGC and BB group
responsibility-holders should be focussing; which
they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant
understand is why in your view should I not be able
to present and defend my views, the below being my
very first email on the issue.<br>
> >><br>
> >> my responses below...<br>
> >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM,
Andrew Puddephatt wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> I don't normally respond to these
discussions but occasionally I feel<br>
> >><br>
> >> I think one should enter a debate with
enough respect for those who are engaging in it....<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> > You received this message as a subscriber
on the list:<br>
> > <a moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
> ><br>
> > For all other list information and
functions, see:<br>
> > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's
charter, see:<br>
> > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not
even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.<br>
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso<br>
> Facebook: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
> LinkedIn: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro"
target="_blank">
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro</a><br>
>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on
the list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions,
see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's
charter, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank"> http://translate.go</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
--<br>
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree
with myself. Keep it in mind.<br>
Twitter: @andreaglorioso<br>
Facebook: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro"
target="_blank">
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>