<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>
Thanks for your response, which is the most well argued and
comprehensive one that I have ever received for this question that
I have asked several times in the last many years. So thanks
again.<br>
<br>
There is another important aspect of your email that I would like
to respond to but let me first do so for<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana">"</font><font face="Verdana">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."</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana"> I will come to IT for Change part the last bec
it is the least important thing here. <br>
<br>
The "command and control" aspect of CIRP that you point to chiefly
is about the ICANN oversight part (the treaty facilitating aspect
being common to OECD and CoE committees and thus is symmetric ).
Please note that the CIRP proposal clearly says that it has picked
CIRP's mandate items from the institutional models suggested by
the Working Group on IG's report. This report clearly says that
the oversight role is the role currently undertaken by US Dept of
Commerce. Obviously, therefore the CIRP proposed only to take up
that role which is currently played by the US Dept of commerce.<br>
<br>
The question then that I have for you; how is ICANN working under
the oversight of US government not a 'command and control'
structure, and I hear it always referred to as a multistakeholder
structure, but if the same role was played together by all
countries it became a 'command and control' structure? (The
current IANA transition process not being relevant here bec it was
not envisaged at the time that CIRP was proposed and then roundly
criticised). <br>
<br>
Second part: "</font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">these
elements could have been stripped from the CIRP proposal -- and
your account suggests this was proposed at a later stage
(perhaps too late?)" (from your email below.<br>
<br>
I have said this before, the proposal itself said, we are open
to discussing, the Indian gov rep at Nairobi IGF, immediately
after the proposal as made, said, we are open to discuss and
change it, and at the next CSTD meeting, India again said we are
open to change it and invited ideas. No response, other than,
the whole thing should simply be abandoned. Most importantly,
India actually separated the oversight part from that for 'other
public policy making' in its submission to the UN Working Group
on Enhanced Cooperation whose precise mandate was to come up
with an appropriate global Internet governance related
institutional architecture, esp for 'public policy making' plus
ICANN oversight. Civil society members were in there in that WG,
and those outside made written submissions, over two rounds, but
any proposal to have an OECD kind of Internet related public
policy mechanism remained fully ignored, and considered as
multilateralist and therefore evil... <br>
<br>
So, I cannot see how you and others decide that it "was too
late"... The right to make the rules of game, and what is the
right time, what is the right way to propose a thing, and so on,
is one of the biggest forms of hegemonic power.... I dont accept
it. The proposal still stands today, you, and others, need to
comment on it as it is being proposed to you, as I am proposing
to you, and not take the cover of, that was the wrong time, and
the wrong way, and so on...<br>
</font><br>
As I said, the WG on enhanced cooperation is being reconstituted,
you and others here are global players in the IG space by choice
and profession; my question to you all is, what is your response
to my proposal (forget others) to develop a Internet related
public policy development mechanism inside the UN "on the exact
model" as it happens in the OECD. I will await yours and other
people's response. And if I do not get it, keep asking this
question. This is about the denial of the right of self
determination and right of democratic participation of the huge
majority of the world's population (non OECD countries). A right,
which in view is, even prior to all other rights, a right which
determines what rights are... <br>
<br>
Lastly, your comment on ITfC's positions: yes, we have always
asked for an OECD like Internet related policy mechanism in the
UN, in the exact model of how it works in the OECD, where it gets
called as a multistakeholder model. For ICANN oversight we has for
a different kind of model. Not only ITfC but JNC (Just Net
Coalition) has made similar demands (see our submissions to the
the NetMundial Conference)... But both IT for Change and JNC get
branded as pro - multilateralism and much of the dominant civil
society here by contrast as pro multi-stakeholderism, while, as
should be obvious from this discussion, the *real and only
difference* is that we refuse to work with US- and OCED-centric
'global' policy and IG models and ask instead to have all
countries equally involved, while preserving the same amount of
multistakeholder participation as it exists in extant models
today. (I say this with full authority, and am ready to stand by
it.) But the fact that the mentioned labels have been so
successfully affixed and sustained speaks of the power of
hegemonic discourse, even within the so called civil society... I
think we need to be doing better than that. We need to be able to
discuss things opening, and provide answers to the questions that
get asked about our positions. If even civil society does not do
it, who would.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 07 February 2016 05:40 AM,
Tamir Israel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
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"><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></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"><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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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>