<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your
detailed answer.<br>
<br>
I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD
policy-making process and particularly on how it manages
multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary
impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way to
improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often raised
on a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements over
time, at least in my opinion).<br>
<br>
I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents
or activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my
recollection the opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements
of the proposal that <i>did</i> envision this type of binding
action, which is far different from what the OECD does. <br>
<br>
Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented in
the UN:<br>
<ul>
<li>Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical
and operational functioning of the Internet, including global
standards setting;</li>
<li>Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
on Internet-related public policies;</li>
<li>Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;</li>
</ul>
All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some
branches of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but
this is neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been
something the committee has done historically in the context of
Internet policy. By contrast, facilitating treaties was a key listed
objective for the CIRP. Likewise, arbitration and dispute resolution
is not only an operationally binding activity, but is typically only
employed where there are hard underlying legal obligations (ie
treaties) between states that can lead to disputes requiring
adjudication.<br>
<br>
Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN,
but all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational
functioning of the Internet". This would include, for example, the
IETF and other technical standards bodies alongside ICANN. <br>
<br>
The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably closer
to multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that the civil
society stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any reports or
policy instruments it generates. As these instruments are not really
binding anyways, that form of dissent can be relatively meaningful
because it undermines the legitimacy of the policy instrument and
legitimacy is really the only currency it has. As a venue I, at
least, have found it worthwhile engaging in, even though as with all
policy processes it's had its ups and downs. Still, it's not ideal
and wholly unsuited to generating binding policy as opposed to just
generating policy. It is nowhere near robust enough for generating
treaties or overseeing all the technical communities and ICANN.<br>
<br>
Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing like
this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command and
control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions. Most,
if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal related to
this particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact that it
would bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply
creating yet one more policy-making venue.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tamir<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 tofill 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco">UNESCO</a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.who.int/about/en/">WHO</a>,
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" 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"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>