<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 05 February 2016 05:08 PM,
Lea Kaspar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi Parminder - sorry for the delay in getting back to you
-</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Admittedly, I don't have a very robust understanding of
what's been going on in the OECD space, so I could be
missing some crucial piece of the puzzle and appreciate the
context you provided. But my comment is broader anyway. I
disagree that you have to deploy a governance agenda in
every advocacy effort you are a part of (which is how I
understand what you're saying). If one thinks that making a
short term gain on, say, cybersecurity, will be undermined
by pushing a governance argument at that point, they may
decide not to bring it up. I don't think this is
contradictory at all, just shows that people have different
priorities and strategies.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Lea<br>
<br>
Please see my last email. It begins with "yes, Lea, that can be.."
and then it asks for a different thing, "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. "<br>
<br>
This response would go for your current email as well. I can agree
to your point, but where is the answer to my question - by you, or
any other, since very big chunk of civil society - most major CS
groups here - are engaged with the OECD process ... Since I get no
response, I take it that the CS groups so engaged have no such plan.<br>
<br>
Now, I repeat, my problem is not with dealing with specific issues
at times without necessarily always commenting on the larger
governance framework. All of us, including my group and networks,
often do that. We are very heavily focussed on specific policy
issues, at least as much as any other global CS group, both at
global and national levels.<br>
<br>
But I am sure you can see that I am specifically pointing on the
lack of symmetry between the attitude of these CS groups to UN
processes and OECD processes. <br>
<br>
Just till two months back, all these groups, including yours, were
at the UN, with respect to WSIS + 10 review... But why there, no
'such concession' was given to let the governance model be, and
focus on substantive Internet policy issues, more and more of which
are becoming increasingly urgent to resolve. The very same issues at
OECD become important to engage with, but at WSIS we seem to
suddenly be at a loss to even agree that there are important
Internet related policy issues that need urgent focussed attention
(the drama that unfolded with regard to the CSTD WG on enhanced
cooperation on this account, for instance).. Why at the UN, the
governance model becomes more important, but at OCED, we want to
focus on substantive issues ? Why when CS contributions to the UN
processes are so heavily loaded with comments and inputs on
'governance model' issue, we are hesitant to mention this aspect at
the OECD? When in fact it is so easy to do it by pointing to the
hypocrisy of OECD nations who speaking with a double tongue
depending on whether at the UN or the OCED. Why do we let go this
excellent opportunity?<br>
<br>
As for opportunities to do so, the forthcoming OECD ministerial on
Internet policy issues is exactly the right kind. It is the first
ministerial after the renamed and re-mandated, new Committee on
Digital Economy Policy... Although as I mentioned in my email to
Tamir, and referenced documents, it is only over 213-14 that the
mandate was changed, and proposals invited to suggest inputs on
working methods - and I understand none were given by this civil
society (why did they not ask it to become 'fully stakeholder' as
they ask UN to) . Interesting, in changing the mandate, language got
added that this committee makes policies 'through multistakeholder
processes', and this happened in 2013-14, in open view of the CS,
after proposals for inputs into mandate framing were invited.... Why
did the civil society groups use this excellent opportunity to give
their version of 'what multistakeholder processes are' and insist on
instituting such processes, or not use the term in the mandate?<br>
<br>
I think there are significant questions that the involved civil
society cannot escape from answering, as they have been. And I dont
think an excuse of focussing on issues rather than governance really
works here. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I can see how if you take governance as the underlying
problem,</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, I equally deal both with governance methods and framework, and
specific issues. Even just one or the other, at times, as required
and opportune. But that still keeps my above questions fully valid,
and IMHO, necessary to answer for the OECD engaged civil society. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div> you could argue that any policy-specific efforts that
ignore governance issues will in the end be unsustainable.
But A) some may disagree that governance is the underlying
problem, </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Maybe .. I know some groups you are so focussed on specific issues
and problems that they may be impatient about tackling governance
issues, which may even be fine... What I cant understand is how for
the 'same groups' , governance becomes the 'key' and prior issue
when they are at the UN, even at the expense of urgent specific
policy issues, but the orientation gets exactly reversed when at
that club of rich, resourceful, countries, the OECD... That still
remains a question to answer. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div>and B) even it it was, it doesn't follow that all efforts
that don't put it at the forefront of their agendas are at
odds with it. Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to
make.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You said that my 'assumption of contradiction seem like a non
sequitur'... Now that I have again explained what is the
contradiction that I am focussing on - not necessarily between
working on specific policy issues versus engaging with governance
framework questions, but flipping one's orientation between being at
the UN and OECD - I hope you do not still consider it a non
sequitur, and even may have another response to it.<br>
<br>
thanks, parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="auto">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div>Lea</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div><br>
On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:59, parminder <<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>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <br>
<br>
<div>On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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 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:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style: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"
target="_blank">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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>