<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=063520213-24052010>Having
had a (limited) involvement, and before we become too enamoured of the OECD
"opening up" we should see it for what it is. The OECD has opened up certain
"technical" committees to "expert" CS and other participation ... What that
means in practice is that they are looking for expert knowledge on the cheap
i.e. for free, from civil society (and other) folks. What that means in
turn is that effectively only those with significant institutional funding i.e.
the major funded NGO's with sufficient interest and resources to finance and
contribute expert knowledge can access meetings where the agenda has
been pre-set by the inter-governmental management structure.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=063520213-24052010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=063520213-24052010>From a
(fairly limited and fairly technical) major funded NGO/CS perspective I can see
some advantages to that, in specific and mostly specialized/technical
areas--standard setting for one... From the perspective of CS or
non-governmental actor participation in broader areas of governance,
hmmmm....</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=063520213-24052010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=063520213-24052010>M</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 24,
2010 4:07 AM<BR><B>To:</B> parminder<BR><B>Cc:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org;
Anriette Esterhuysen; Milton L Mueller<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance]
CSTD<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Parminder
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On May 24, 2010, at 12:14 PM, parminder wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR><BR>While I have some clarifying comments on Anriette's detailed
report (thanks for it) and subsequent remarks on it by others, it may
be better to take some specific example and build our discussion around it.
Bill's comments provides us one such example, that of OECD, as the kind of
forums which work and with which we should engage rather than wasting our
energies on something as dangerous and elusive as EC :)
.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Sigh...I of course did not say we shouldn't be unconcerned with
EC, but rather that the OECD experience indicates that in some cases it's
possible to open up actually existing processes. </DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining
chit to use on other chessboards and not someplace they want to really
engage in multistakeholder decision making, one has to wonder whether
trying to turn it into a decision making body isn't a bit chimeric and a
poor use of scarce CS energies. I'd rather see us pushing to open up
to participation and accountability those bodies that they do take
seriously and want to use for decision making. It can be done,
sometimes...look at the OECD, a somewhat underrated achievement.
This is why I thought we should be objecting more to the distorted
reading of EC as pure intergovernmentalism with the ITU dedicated group
held up as exhibit A, despite TAIS 71's clear statement that EC is to be
MS.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all,
obviously we from the developing countries cannot be looking up to OECD
Internet policy related mechanisms as our deliverance. In fact, OECD's
Internet policy related activities rather than being the solution may be a
big part of the problem for developing countries. I have said this so many
times that it wont harm saying it once more - OECD's policies would
soon become the default global norms, and we from the developing countries
are not at all happy to be subject to norms and policies that are developed
without our full democratic participation.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I of course did not say that people from developing
countries should look to OECD Internet policy related mechanisms for
deliverance. And I have long made the point in writing, talks etc that
deals worked out at that level can and do set de facto global rules.
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>I fail to understand why this lack of global democracy does not
violate some people's sense of fairness and justice as does the perceived
lack of multistakeholderism (MSism) ins yet-to-be global forums for global
Internet policies does. Can anyone provide me an answer to that.<BR><BR>But
let us not be distracted. My principal point here is that if OECD's model of
developing Internet related policies, with its effectiveness and its
structures of stakeholder participation, is seen as exemplary, why dont we
propose the same model but including all countries.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>I have never heard of any such a proposal. </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>This was my original proposal for a new forum made at the UNICT
TF global forum in NYC in March 2004, later published in Don MacLean's edited
book.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>But it is never too late. Are we all here willing to propose a new
global Internet policy forum modeled exactly on OECD's Internet related
policy making processes, but with equal participation of all countries, and
with exactly the same stakeholder participation model.<BR><BR>That looks to
me as a perfect enhanced cooperation model to suggest. Bill, what do you
say. <BR>What is good for OECD countries, why shouldnt it be good for all
countries together!<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I long favored this, although developments since have led me to
wonder, per Anriette and Jeanette, whether it could have a chance of being
successful, much less agreed to. Still, as an effort to think through
the "so what <I>do</I> we want" question, it's probably worth
considering as a baseline model.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>Although I personally think it should be possible to suggest an
even more participative EC model than the present OECD model, if we
appear to be so happy with the OECD model lets go with it. I am sure
developing countries can be brought around. Lets float the idea and see what
actors speak against it, and which for. And you would get the real picture
of where we really stand today vis a vis global Internet policy regimes, or
the absence of them.<BR><BR>I only know broadly about the OECD
Internet policies related model. Others who know more can please elaborate -
how it works, how it is structured for participation etc. Lets take it as a
base for developing a 'enhanced cooperation' model for global Internet
policy making and propose it to all stakeholders. This is quite the time for
such a proposal to be made.<BR><BR>I mean to present the above proposal
rather seriously. And I hope others in this discussion do respond to
it.<BR><BR>Parminder<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>