<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="sans-serif">Dear Katitza</font><br>
<br>
On Sunday 18 September 2011 10:56 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E7629E0.4040204@eff.org" type="cite">Hi
Parminder,
<br>
<br>
We have shout loudly when we do not agree with issues at the OECD. Here
is a summary of other post other NGOs have written about.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://csisac.org/2011/06/csisac_declines_to_support_oec.php">http://csisac.org/2011/06/csisac_declines_to_support_oec.php</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
"We'' havent shouted at their *process* of, or the very effort at,
international policy making in the area of IG.... That 'process' issue
is the one under discussion, not the selective disagreements with some
substantive issues. I hope the distinction appears clear.<br>
<br>
With regard to a possible UN role, we are still at establishing a
'process'. The question of substantive issues havent arisen. Though the
IBSA statement of Dec 2011 does identify the following kinds of issues.
To quote<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote> " Apart from technical aspects, the discussion on
Internet governance has several critical public policy implications
that necessitate the involvement of governments. These include among
others, issues such as stability of the internet; interoperability;
accessibility and openness (costs and human rights); network
neutrality; access to knowledge and the balanced approach between
openess, security and privacy aspects of the Internet; cybersecurity
and the ICTs (as they relate to the Internet) and development nexus. A
central issue in Internet governance is the management of Critical
Internet Resources. "<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
(Remember, network neutrality and access to knowledge fail to make it
to OECD's policy principle documents. So, yes, there will be good
points and bad points in each forum and civil society will have to take
positions accordingly. Democratic nature of the forum itself is however
a meta, and prior, point, and is of course independently very
important.)<br>
<br>
However, as and when a democratic UN system does begin to take note of
substantive international Internet-related public policy issues, I have
do doubt that some such issues and positions will come up on which
civil society will have to fight hard against, do all kinds of
protests, walk outs, campaigns and other forms of advocacy and direct
action,etc, one example of which in the OECD context you speak about
above. Hope this clarifies.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4E7629E0.4040204@eff.org" type="cite"><br>
Copyright is also one of the issues at stake in this overall mess. :)
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
<br>
Katitza
<br>
On 9/18/11 10:22 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In message
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:4E762233.9020601@itforchange.net"><4E762233.9020601@itforchange.net></a>, at 22:24:11 on Sun, 18 Sep
2011, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> writes
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On the other hand, Milton why does it not
surprise you when US comes out with the International strategy for
cyberspace without raising it first at the IGF, ditto for OECD (shaping
a bold new extra legal and extra territorial IP enforcement regime)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, OECD had a workshop on that exact topic (if you mean the
Liability of Intermediaries) at IGF last year. And of course civil
society has their own representation at the table (CSISAC), even if
they didn't agree with the communique issued by OECD earlier this year.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>