<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Verdana">Dear Tamir<br>
<br>
A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with
this important issue. <br>
Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied... <br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM,
Tamir Israel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state
Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the
proposal did <i>not</i> follow the OECD model. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP proposal
, and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for Change gave
a <a
href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf">submission</a>
to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did a
<a href="http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011">background
paper</a> for IBSA meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public
documents), which sought a UN Body on Internet policies taking from
the OECD model. This OECD model was specifically discussed in both
these papers. The <a
href="http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf">mandate
of CIRP</a> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including
the Committee on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point
to be discussed later). The stakeholder consultation process of CIRP
was exactly taken from the OECD model, plus a very important
additional element that "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP" (OECD
having no such system and thus being deficient to that extent in its
multistakeholder content)<br>
<br>
See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy <a
href="http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=">here</a>,
and that of its predecessor CICCP <a
href="http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=">here</a>
. These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop
policy frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members. Policy
development is the central objective of OECD, and this is written
upfront on its <a href="http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/">Internet
economy page</a> 'The OECD focuses on the development of better
policies..."<br>
<br>
When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like they
exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on, the
respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty development
process.<br>
<br>
UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to basically
be doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading of the
proposal, with the same multistakeholder model, only reinforcement
through formation of an organic linkage with the IGF and inviting
its inputs. So, I will like to ask you, how has India's CIRP
proposal become a multilateral, inter-state, IG body, while OECD's
CDEP is a multistakeholder, harmless body? That was my original
question.<br>
<br>
Now, if you want to focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on
just one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets
discuss it. <br>
<br>
Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we suggested
just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN oversight for
this body.... But I can see that when India was making a proposal to
the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the most contested global IG
issue, of the US's unilateral oversight over ICANN, and the express
mandate of the WSIS that<big> "<font size="2"><big><font size="2"><big><span
style="font-weight: 400">all governments should have an
equal role and responsibility for international Internet
governance and for ensuring the stability, security and
continuity of the Internet" (para 68), which directly
speaks to equal oversight role over ICANN, if there has
to be one. Now, India did not have time to make an
elaborate separate proposal for oversight transition,
and put that role under the proposed new Committee for
Internet Related Policies. In doing so, it picked up the
language from 2 Models of IG architecture put forward by
the (multistakeholder) <a
href="http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf">Working
Group on IG</a> . <br>
<br>
Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in
the UN clearly called<br>
<br>
"for the establishment of an openended working group under
the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for
CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of
all
Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek to
fill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept<br>
of Enhanced Cooperation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"<br>
<br>
So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have
just said, remove the oversight role from this committee
and the rest is ok... Within a few months, at the next
CSTD meeting, India again said, tell us what issues you
have with our proposal and lets discuss them. No
response. Then in another few months, on its own, in its
submission to the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India
separated the issue and proposed mechanism for general
Internet related public policy development (as OECD
does) and the oversight role, on which they asked for a
separate discussion and possible mechanism. <br>
<br>
But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as
before, to Northern government and big business, but
also to the tech community and most of the civil
society... And this is the hypocrisy that I point to.</span></big></font></big></font></big>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> <br>
The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a
multi-stakeholder context.</blockquote>
<br>
This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic
constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have linked
to OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities of UN
bodies, like <a
href="http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco">UNESCO</a>,
<a href="http://www.who.int/about/en/">WHO</a>, <a
href="http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html">UNDP</a>,
and if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant
mode of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies as
listed) then maybe you can <a
href="http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html">see
this one</a> .... Most of these do more or less exactly the same
stuff as OECD committees do... How often have you seen hard law
coming out of the UN . And then OECD also produces binding
agreements... What and how is what OECD does 'soft' and what UN does
'hard'... There is no IMHO basis for your statement and claim. <br>
<br>
As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring to
OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN CIRP
be not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees
multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP proposal,
but if you havent it is again <a
href="http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf">here</a>,
and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as
OECD's CDEP. <br>
<br>
It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email
denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and
are calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for
the hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder
participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech
community rep recently called the OECD process as
"multistakeholderism at work" (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions">http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions</a> ). Such
adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder,
are commonplace.... But the same people call a proposal form
developing countries with the same stakeholder participation model
as multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is extremely
unfair. And a great example of hegemonic discourse at work,
extremely efficiently. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> On
digital issues, civil society has direct input into that
policy-making process, and this has been the case since the Seoul
Ministerial in 2009 </blockquote>
<br>
I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such
inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But in
any case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed for
the UN CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups
preceding the inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite">(the
recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy which you
refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed functionally
with respect to the nature or scope of digital issues undertaken
or civil society's role therein). <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but
proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf">http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf</a>
) while changing its name in 2014. What I want to know is
whether any civil society group asked for change in this Committees
stakeholder consultation processes to making it 'really
multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not considered so
(which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP proposal). I know that
nothing like this happened. Why?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> <br>
The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports
or, at most, soft law instruments </blockquote>
<br>
As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language in
such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply the
hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and
sustain. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite">--
nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful for
civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt to
resolve policy issues. We definitely do not have the final say on
these policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state parties.</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> But
the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, </blockquote>
<br>
If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of
being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite">meaning
they will keep working until views of all member states and of the
four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant: the business
community, the technical community, a trade union community and on
telecommunications and digital issues, civil society). To date
there has been only one single occasion where a policy document
was adopted by the OECD over the sustained objections of civil
society. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That was the single most important document produced by the
committee "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others
issues too I know, they listen but the inter gov committee finally
decides. And I am sure that much has been written in OECD policy
docs that does not pass full civil society muster.... You are
over-blowing the camaraderie. And if there is indeed some kind of
a 'temporary and limited congruence' of libertarian civil society
and tech community with the Northern countries on Internet issues,
that has a different basis, and is essentially temporary and
limited. Such congruence often takes place between civil society and
developing country views in most global social, economic and
cultural polity issues. Lets not get into that discussion. 9But if
you want to, I am happy to ).. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> <br>
Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on
anyone. In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely
unimplemented by OECD member states. They tend to form more of a
reference or normative statement that is at most useful as one
single input into domestic policy-making processes (I note
incidentally that I do a lot of national policy development and
that in my experience most OECD policies tend to be more useful to
civil society than to other segments of society, for whatever
that's worth).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read in
detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I referenced
and others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have been reading
about. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> <br>
My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the
time (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.</blockquote>
<br>
I hope my above references corrects it..... <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> It
was to be based on a command and control model. </blockquote>
<br>
It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20 percent
had the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to Tunis
Agenda references India needed to put somewhere in its proposal, (2)
India was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in less than a year
after the initial proposal, in its proposal to WG on Enhanced
Cooperation, India split the proposal to separate the oversight
mechanism issue... However, the attitude to, and name calling vis a
vis, its proposal for a Un platform to develop Internet related
policies, and similar proposals by groups like mine, did not move an
inch... It was the same diabolical multilateral,, inter gov,
proposal, out to control the Internet... <br>
<br>
This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country view,
which does not behove the global civil society. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite">It
envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the OECD,
directly implements its policies by its control of the root, etc),
but with governments at the helm as opposed to the stakeholder
model. </blockquote>
<br>
Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper
since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is
outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN. And
even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and mis-characterise
proposals from developing country (given their under-capacity to
defend them), it is easy to see that the wording on 'oversight' in
the Indiam proposal came from the WGIG report, where the
distinctions between oversight and actual ICANN operations was
clearly made, over much diligent discussions in an entirely
multi-stakeholder fashion. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite">Indeed,
one element of the proposal would have been to place ICANN (and
perhaps some of the other technical communities) under the control
of the new UN governance body. This is very different from the
OECD soft policy-development process.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been
discussed in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by subsequent
Indian proposals.<br>
<br>
I am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further
information or clarification that you might require.<br>
<br>
And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has become
a deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )... <br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca" type="cite"> <br>
All the best (and happy 2016 !),<br>
Tamir<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48
PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Parminder, the assumption of the
contradiction seem like a non sequitur. Why would interest
to engage in a process like the OECD have to imply a
normative endorsement of the status quo? Working with the
system that we've currently got can go hand in hand with
efforts to make the system as a whole better. Not to mention
the value of damage control.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the
engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial
that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is
really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
society, even though we may be working with you per force. And
also ask these governments how they brazenly run such a
inter-gov policy system when they criticise any similar effort
by UN as being distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and
say pious things like that Internet is just not the kind of
thing to be governed in an inter-gov manner. Are we ready to
make such a statement at the Ministrial, while, ok, accepting
your logic, not stopping to engage with OECD's policy processes,
in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?<br>
<br>
All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011
when they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism
proposal which was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's
model as being inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably
bad, representing the worst things that any human mind could
ever come up with... <br>
<br>
In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on
Digital Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee
on computers, communication and information policy -- this
happened much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of
India's UN proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee
was being formed, civil society tell OECD that Internet cannot
be governed in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming
this new committee thy should make it genuinely
multistakeholder.... No, no one spoke a word.... I am ready to
be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one word was said, much
less a statement made. it was not that civil society asked for
it, and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you are
saying... They never uttered a single word.... Such is its
pusillanimity in front of the powerful, while the real job of
civil society is to challenge the most powerful. <br>
<br>
And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in
the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd
voice recently spoke about whether OECD's process is
multistakeholder enough, the general consensus was, leave that
aside, lets focus on substantive issues!!<br>
<br>
When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage,
suddenly no one can even think of any important enough non
ICANN-y Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have
spent years wondering whether any or enough of such issues even
exist. It is a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the
OECD, and such policy issues roll out like no ones business -
work in the Internet age, sharing economy, economics of data,
algorithmic economy, policy implications of internet of things,
big data and social profiling ........... The list is unending.
Civil society itself actively keeps suggesting new policy areas
and engaging with them.<br>
<br>
People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums
like this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet
or digital policies related body, and all such areas can very
well be dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted
domains (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells
OECD's Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous
when OECD has about 50 other committees dealing with every
possible area, where, by that logic , specific issues of
Internet impact could have been adequately dealt with. <br>
<br>
Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warm wishes,</div>
<div>Lea</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13
PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a></a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <br>
<br>
<div>On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos
Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Grande Parm,
"Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Carlos,<br>
<br>
Nice to hear from you!<br>
<br>
I should not have generalised. My apologies. But
the civil society section that engages with OECD's
Internet policy processes is really a pretty big
part of the civil society groups dominant in the
global IG space. So, my question may be taken just
as being addressed to this quite big civil society
section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory
stand when they are at the OECD (the club of the
rich countries) vis a vis when they are at the UN
(a grouping of all countries) .<br>
<br>
best regards, parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>fraternal regards
--c.a.
On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
become my pet question...
Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
I cant make it simpler.
Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
parminder
On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi all.
Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
We've also included information on how to participate. The most
important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
OECD.
Best, Carol
· OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development" target="_blank">https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development</a>
· Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development" target="_blank">https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development</a>
· OECD Ministerial Meetings
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings" target="_blank">https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>