<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="sans-serif">Hi Anriette <br>
<br>
Thanks for the detailed email. It is helpful to roll thoughts along
together. I will respond to the 'civil society and OECD' point in your
email separately. Here, just about the global IG's institutional
structure.<br>
<br>
When, as you agree, or at least are sympathetic to the view, that<br>
</font>
<pre wrap=""> current IG arrangements are just not working
for developing country governments</pre>
and<font face="sans-serif">, that<br>
</font>
<pre wrap="">internet is increasingly being run by powerful corporations; that policy
is being made by actors who cannot be really be held accountable in any
tangible way.</pre>
we need to either accept the status quo, with its stated faults or seek
new arrangements. What is your view of the possible new arrangement(s),
even if it were an improvement over the existing one?<br>
<br>
Excuse my presumptuousness but, I would think that the 'OECD versus
similar arrangement with all countries in', is a clear democratic step
that no one, with any democratic credentials, can plausibly disagree
with, but I continue *not* to get a clear response on that question.
Ok, let me frame it in a different way.<br>
<br>
<b>If today the </b><b>OECD</b><b>, and thus its CICCP (the internet
policy related committee) is proposed to be expanded to include all
countries, without changing anything else substantially about it, will
you (1) enthusiastically support such a proposal or (2) oppose it. </b><br>
<br>
Try seeing the IBSA proposal simply as that. In fact, with the IGF
attached to it in a complementary role as per UN GA resolution, the
proposed new body will be even more participative that the CICCP. My
question remains, on what basis do you oppose such an institutional
reform/ change in the global IG's institutional architecture.<br>
<br>
As you seem to agree, OECD policies get by default applied to other
parts of the world. Is it not unfair, undemocratic and against the
rights of these other people and groups? Can we simply ignore this
issue? If not, what is your response to it. <br>
<br>
You say OECD has good track record on certain issues like privacy.
Developing countries have a good track on access to knowledge, IP
restrictions, net neutrality and open standards (at least, its advocacy
at the global stage), fair and just global trade polices, and good
global economic competition law..... So who chooses which set of issues
- those on which OECD may be good, and those in which developing
countries may be good - are more important? (Echoes here of negative
rights versus positive rights debates.) In any case, in the 'new body'
even the OECD members will be there, and as in all UN bodies they
remain outstandingly powerful. A new body will all countries
represented would therefore be able to negotiate across this whole
range of issues in a much better - global public interest wise - ways.
As, we keep forgetting, they together negotiated such a rich range of
human rights! And in keeping with current times, we are going to ensure
that there is more multistakeholder participation than ever in these
processes. <br>
<br>
You say that rigid institutionalisation is problematic, but right now
my digital life is determined by OECD decisions. So, whether we
democratically participate in it or not, decisions are being taken and
'governance' taking place. Then, there are general comments in your
email about problems about 'governance systems' and governments being
what they are, and being prone to wrong and bad decisions.... these are
general points, which one can agree with. And that is why civil society
exists.<br>
<br>
However, as a responsible civil society, we should be able to offer
what we think should be the right institutional model, and also, as
importantly, our pathway towards it. Otherwise, it becomes abdication,
which in a political space, is unacceptable.<br>
<br>
Milton advocates some kind of a new denationalised governance regime.
I have sought more details form him, and he says I have to read his
book, which I have not been able to yet. I suspect he does not have a
very clear vision of what that model will look like in actual practice,
and in relation to the real world we live in, but I am happy to hear
more on that. I think, the trajectory to 'that right model' from the
present situation is not well-charted out, but again I am open to be
corrected. I have supported the general idea of a 'new global public'
(actually IT for Change theorises on this concept in our works), which
underpins the Milton model. However, I am interested in working on
practical strategies as well. But, the biggest problem with the<b>
de-nationalised model of MIlton's, as I understand it, is that it does
not address the re-distributional and welfare aspects that are required
of any polity. This from my, and most developing country civil
society's, point of view is a non starter. </b><br>
<br>
I however do give this much credit to Milton that in pursuance of his
political vision, he came up with a specific proposal to make IGF into
a body of considerable soft power, which I, generally, supported ( i
would want more clear reform of the participation model of the IGF,
which is in our proposal before the WG on IGF improvements, before I
can increase my support for this model).<br>
<br>
Accordingly, Anriette, I will like to know what global institutional IG
model you (and APC) supports. At some time APC proposed a global
Framework Convention on the Internet, which idea you/it seems no longer
interested in. I have been unable to convince you to work for taking
IGF towards clear recommendations making processes, that being in my
view the best, and the only at hand, practical, way to increase
multi-stakeholder participation in global IG policy making. I was
surprised during the meeting of Working Group on improvements to the
IGF that you seemed not willing to go along with the 'working groups'
in the MAG model (which was also a part of APC IGF improvements
proposals a couple of years back) , the least that is required to start
structuring IGF towards some degree of purposiveness. In these
circumstances, I really want to know what is your institutional model
for global IG?<br>
<br>
If possible, I will like to engage with APC partners and internal APC
decision making structures to understand the perspectives on this
issue, and if possible, try to influence them. <br>
<br>
Anyone on the list is welcome to ask probing questions about IT for
Change's views, current and historically, in the above matter, or on
any other matter. We will gladly answer, in full detail, every time.
That is for us a constitutional promise. For us, this is true openness
and transparency, and the key value and process that gives civil
society its legitimacy. <br>
<br>
Apologies for the long email. Too many points in this important
discussion, which needed to be discussed.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<font face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><br>
On Wednesday 21 September 2011 10:38 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E7A1A2B.8000804@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello all
I was at the the IBSA meeting in Brazil along with two other people from
South Africa. Shaun Pather, an academic working on community
informatics, and Mark Weinberg from the Right to Know Campaign.
I have not had time to share my own thoughts.. or even write up the
notes from my inputs at the Rio meeting. APC is having an internal
discussion on the proposals with members but it will take a while for us
to have a position on this.
My own views (not APC's) are that the proposals should be considered as
a really strong signal that current IG arrangements are just not working
for developing country governments, including some that are committed to
multi-stakeholder participation, and to the IGF, and who have been
attending ICANN meetings for a long time.
Some of these governments share a concern with many CSOs that the
internet is increasingly being run by powerful corporations; that policy
is being made by actors who cannot be really be held accountable in any
tangible way.
At the same time I have concerns - based on personal and political
experience - about the implications for human rights, openness and for
the participation of civil society, social entrepreneurs, hackers,
developers etc. of more rigid institutionalisation of intergovernmental
oversight of internet governance. I also have seen so many times that
when governments argue about multi-stakeholder participation, or human
rights, that even the ones are committed to it, will be willing to
sacrifice it for the sake of other geo-political interests.
I also wanted to respond to Parminder on civil society involvement in
the OECD. My own involvement in CSISAC dates back to its formation at
the Seoul meeting in 2008, but other civil society people have been
working at OECD level for a long, long time, e.g. EDRI, EFF, EPIC,
Privacy International and many others.
My impression of civil society involvement in the OECD is very different
from yours Parminder. I have never understood that it is seen as an
endorsement of any kind. Yes, there is a recognition that the OECD has
had a good track record on certain issues such as, for example,
protection of personal privacy.
To say civil society 'enthusiastically engages with it' does not
describe my experience of it. It is hard work, with little resources,
and requires a great deal of preparation and research. It is also quite
tough because you have to lobby hard for your interests against people
from the business sector that are really good at what they do, and
incredibly well prepared and organised within their constituency.
I have been really impressed by the CSISAC community's voluntary
commitment and hard work to try and keep civil society voices heard in
the OECD. It is not easy.
Others should comment, but my sense was that the reason that CSOs like
EPIC, EDRI, consumer groups and many others worked so hard to get
recognition at OECD level was because they were concerned that the OECD
was not systematically including civil society, resulting the views and
interests of the other nongovernmental stakeholders like the technical
community and businesses influencing OECD directives at the expense of
the public interest and civil society concerns.
In other words, it was a move to prevent bad decisions, rather than an
endorsement of the OECD as the perfect model of international
decision-making on the internet.
The OECD like the UN and other international organisations have some
really excellent people on staff who are generally very progressive and
who do their best to ensure that 'pro-public interest' (for want of a
better phrase) decisions are made. But this is no guarantee that in the
end governments will not make decisions that they, or civil society for
that matter, are not happy with as we have seen with regard to issues
like intermediary liability and IPR protection in the 'internet
governance principles' adopted in June 2011.
The OECD exists, and it makes important decisions that are relevant to
the progressive CSOs that have worked for many years in OECD countries
to protect the public interest. That is why for them the OECD is a site
of struggle.. and.. as OECD guidelines etc. are often picked up in other
parts of the world it has also become an important site of struggle for
civil society from developing countries.
Anriette
On 21/09/11 06:52, parminder wrote:
[snip]
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> While I don't favor UN-based intergovernmental control,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
When OECD does it, it is 'policy making', and the civil society
enthusiastically engages with it, when UN seeks to do it, it is
'control' . This is amusing!! The power of the discourse!!
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the idea's been floating in the wind and configuring perceptions and
dialogue for so long that it would be useful to finally hear the
proponents get up in public and make their case about what problems
require such a solution,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Exactly the same problems that OECD, CoE etc think 'require a solution',
and are intensively working on; to whose work in this area, there never
seems to have been an objection. Every of their document speaks of
urgent need of frameworks of principles, global agreements etc. The same
problems, and similar sought solutions, just more democratic and
inclusive.....
I have thrown this challenge at 'you guys' - to borrow your term - often
in this list but without response, and I repeat it.
*On what basis do you oppose, say, if the EXACT mechanism that OECD follows
in policy making, framework development, etc in the area of
international internet-related public policies, with its exact
mechanisms of multi-stakeholder participation also thrown in,
was to instituted in the UN .... which simply means it would be
democratic, a prime civil society value, i would think......*
It is by answering clearly such direct questions, and getting into a
full debate over them that constitutes openness and transparency, not
just by using the power of the dominant discourse and vocabulary to
condemn others to evilness of being closed and non-transparent, and
arrogating to oneself all the corresponding good qualities....
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">how it could possibly work, why the benefits would outweigh the costs,
how consensus could be achieved and how you'd proceed if it cannot,
and so on. That certainly did not happen within the WGIG with respect
to the three "oversight" models some of the government reps put on the
table (which, BTW, the caucus strongly opposed at the time). It would
be better to finally have an open multistakeholder debate on the
merits than for the IBSA governments to take it to their summit and
into the UN GA without the benefit of this reality check.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
2) During the next IGF, government representatives have accepted to
take part in several workshops organized by CS that are discussing
IGF improvement, when they will certainly be able to talk about
IBSA's aims. So the discussion will not bypass the IGF as you said.
I hope you will be there to raise your issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There will be more opportunities than this. For example, I intend to
raise it again in the main session on CIR, which I'm co-moderating
with Emily Taylor, and in my workshop on institutional choice in
GIG <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178"><http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2011View&wspid=178></a>,
which is a feeder for the CIR session. Tulika from the Indian
government will be speaking on both, as will Alice, Anriette, and
Fiona (plus others here who are on or the other, e.g. Avri, Jeanette,
Patrik..). So let's get it out in the open and hear what people have
to say either way. While such a debate will be divisive, a UN GA
proposal that hasn't been openly debated would be much more so.
Cheers,
Bill
***************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch"><mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake">www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake"><http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.williamdrake.org"><http://www.williamdrake.org></a>
****************************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>