<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Verdana">Lea<br>
<br>
Some responses below.<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 08 February 2016 08:42 PM,
Lea Kaspar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">SNIP<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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"> 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.
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We have not been engaged in the OECD in the past, so
I'm afraid I'm not able to answer this question. Perhaps
better directed at groups who are engaged.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are you engaged in OECD now?. The key OECD ministerial on Internet
policy issues is right now being prepared for. Good time to either
explain why civil society doesnt make the same demands from OECD's
Internet making processes as it does from the UN or, get up and,
make these demands at the ministerial. As for directing this to
groups that are already fully engaged with OECD, I dont seen them
forthcoming at all.<br>
<br>
But, then, let me speak about areas where your organisation Global
Partners has strongly engaged, perhaps more than any other group -
the WSIS plus 10 process. If indeed, as the last para of this email
says, your goal was basically to " push for greater inclusiveness,
openness, and transparency of all relevant UN (or non-UN)
institutions", and not like the US and its gov allies to simply
minimise the whole process and possibilities of its outcomes, why
did your groups and many others not support the G 77 position in the
build up for the WSIS to have a full original WSIS style +10 review,
prepcoms and all, which would have happened in Geneva... I wrote
several times to IGC and BB lists about this problematic stand of CS
groups but you or anyone of your group never engaged.<br>
<br>
The original WSIS was not only the most multistakeholder of any UN
process ever, it was more MS than most actual policy processes
anywhere, at least in some key aspects. Any submission by CS would
go to the screen as part of the text under negotiation and it
actually needed to be struck down by negotiating parties, something
I have seen nowhere else. And there were great opportunities of CS
self organising, nothing like that have been seen since. 10 years
hence, if we has got that process, we could have even further
improved inclusive-ness and transparency standards. And there were
official regional consultations in the run up, and so on....... Why
did your group and others not support developing countries' demand
to do full scale WSIS plus 10, when this one issue was the reason
for the stand off between developing countries and developed ones
for more than a year. and you know it... And in all this while, CS,
including your group, were doing everything other than to support a
full fledged WSIS plus 10 with its full fledged prepcom process,
which would certainly have had to follow the original WSIS pattern
of inclusiveness.... Why most groups, including yours, remained
close to the US and its allies' position on simply minimise the
WSIS, which then ended up getting folded into a stump process at
NY, and immediately as it happened, the same people begun to lament
its non participativeness. Wasnt it always known that a UNGA linked
NY based process would be like that, and if we really wanted a fully
open process we should simply have supported developing countries in
their demand for a full WSIS +10 process rather than supporting US
and its allies whose main objective was simply to see through the
WSIS +10 as a kind if unavoidable evil with minimum damage and then
get on to their own Internet policy devices like at the OECD . So,
well, this issue is also fully connected to the OECD issue, and the
whole issue of how actually global Internet policy, in both de jure
and de facto ways, is actually made has to be seen in one frame. It
does not work to profess ignorance about some parts, and that is it.
GP runs probably the biggest IG capacity building program for
developing countries, so I think it is good to know and engage with
the whole integrated scene. <br>
<br>
Even in the CS process for a statement for the WSIS + 10, did your
group not resist the idea for a summit meeting as the next stop
after WSIS 10 completely in keeping with your stand in the run up to
WSIS + 10. Apart from the know precedent of original WSIS, whose
participatory format will be default for any full scale WSIS
meeting, we know from other global summits like for climate change,
SDGs, etc, that such alone afford a real large framework for CS
participation and not NY based stump meetings, which was in the
current case a direct result of the intransigent stand of US and its
allies, supported fully by the tech community, business and a large
part of CS, including your group. <br>
<br>
So, this position of pushing back UN based processes on Internet
policy, whether participative or not, and by active support or
default having developed/ rich countries only forums to make
'global' policy is an integrated , large picture one, which is what
I am critiquing. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<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">snip<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I can't speak for others, and since we haven't been a
part of previous OECD engagement efforts, it's hard to
say whether and how much our potential approach at the
OECD would have been similar to our approach in other
processes. What I can say is that our engagement
strategy in the recent WSIS Review was in large part
formed as a response to the official framework for input
issued by the UN. We were responding to a specific
request for input on specific text which had a specific
section on internet governance. Hence, an explicit
position on governance as reflected in a number of
submissions we worked on during the Review.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I discuss above, your group and many others were of course
actively involved in the run up to the WSIS plus 10 as well. On
specific text as well, as I ask above, why your resistance to even
in 5 or 10 years to hold a full summit with full prepcoms etc??? And
that when your group works closely with developed country controlled
global processes like the London cyberspace process, Inter gov
Coalition for Internet freedom, and so on, and as I suspect from
what you write you may also be beginning to engage with OECD.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> This was also the case in our engagement in, for
instance, NETmundial. On the other hand, during our
engagement at the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 (which is
arguably a more legally binding space than the OECD), we
focused very little on governance frameworks etc. This
was again in part mandated by the official Plenipot
agenda and modalities for participation, but also our
understanding of where the greatest gains could be made
at the time (for instance, openness and transparency of
the ITU itself was something we spent a lot of time
working on). </div>
<div> </div>
<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">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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Agreement on what makes an 'excellent opportunity' as
you put it, requires some common understanding of
ultimate aims. Perhaps this is a point worth discussing
further. Speaking for myself and GPD, I can tell you
that we are not looking for opportunities to set up a
new multilateral UN body to deal with internet issues,
be it at the OECD, WGEC, or elsewhere.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Lea, we cannot keep speaking past each other like this.... *There is
no need to create a multilateral body on IG issues at the OECD,
there already is one* -- and that one is having its four yearly
ministerial in a few days!!! This is the one on which you refuse to
proffer your views, vis a vis the possibility of a similar body/
process in the UN. And of course if you do not consider this OECD's
Internet policy body as multilateral (in inter-gov sense) you please
tell me. That is the original point of discussion. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>SNIP<br>
</div>
<div>If this was the case, it does sound like a missed
opportunity! I agree that we should aim to be more
consistent in our engagement efforts with these bodies.
Often though, resources get in the way.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
But then the OECD ministerial is just a few days away, and the
involved CS can take a stand now and issue a statement that we do
not find the OECD Internet policy body as multistakeholder, and they
should change it. We can draft a CS statement here. Do you agree? It
would be strange to rue an earlier one as a missed opportunity when
we seem not ready to take an opportunity that faces us right now! <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
snip
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hope this at least answers some of your questions. I
have just seen a follow up email from you which asks for
call to action to engage in the new WGEC. As I mentioned
above, we do not intend to push for a new ML Internet
body,</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I dont know whether it is a ML or MS body, my question is, are you
ready to propose an Internet policy body in the UN, with exactly the
same stakeholder participation design as of the current OCED's
Internet policy body (I leave it to you to call it MS or ML) ? If
not, why not?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> but I'd be more than happy to coalesce around
strategies to push for greater inclusiveness, openness,
and transparency of all relevant UN (or non-UN)
institutions. Would this be something you'd be
interested in working on?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We have signed common statements with your organisation for
inclusiveness in WSIS process and in ITU, and every other place. And
so you know my answer, which is yes. If any other statement is being
proposed, you know we would sign it. I dont answer your question by
saying I havent looked into it enough, or we work more with other
forums, or that we focus on substantive rather than process, or....
This when actually my org has at this time time zero IG funds, and I
am the only one who is able to give some time to IG, dividing that
little time between national issues and global - which is must more
than can be said about GPD which indeed focussed on the global stage
and is remarkably well provided. <br>
<br>
And since I give precise answers to your proposals, pl give to mine
as well about OECD versus UN Internet policy processes, rather than
saying that you havent looked into this issue yet.<br>
<br>
Basically, either we write a statement to forthcoming OECD
ministerial that their Internet policy process is ML and not MS, and
we want it to be MS, and it is particularly hypocritical for OECD
countries to do this when they at the UN says Internet policy making
should be MS, and on this ground obstruct any UN based policy
development policies?<br>
<br>
Or, we support my proposal to have an Internet policy body for the
UN on exactly the same model as one in the OECD, which in reality
simply means that we are kind of asking that a particular model of
Internet policy making, with global impact, which at present
includes only 35 or so richest countries expands to allow all
countries, rich or poor.<br>
<br>
Which one are you, and others here, willing to do?<br>
<br>
Thanks, parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Lea </div>
<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">
<blockquote 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></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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</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>