<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><br></div><div>I can see how if you take governance as the underlying problem, 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, 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><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 href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</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 href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</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 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 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 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 href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a 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 href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a 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 href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a 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>