As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. <div><br></div><div><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:12pt"><a href="http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php">http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php</a></span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">
<span style="font-size:12pt"><br></span></p><h2 id="archive-title" style="margin:6px 0px;padding:0px;text-decoration:underline"><font><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making</span></font></h2>
<div class="entry" id="entry-4480"><div class="entry-content"><div class="entry-body"><p style="padding-top:0px;margin-top:0px"><font><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC <a href="http://csisac.org/CSISAC-PR-191211/CSISAC-PR-191211.pdf" target="_blank">welcomes</a> the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/58/49258588.pdf" target="_blank">Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making</a> adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet.<br>
<br>Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it <a href="http://csisac.org/CSISAC_PR_06292011.pdf" target="_blank">declined to support</a> a previous <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/21/48289796.pdf" target="_blank">Communique</a> resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011.<br>
<br>CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens.</span></font></p>
</div></div></div><br>On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:<br>
>> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too!<br>
>><br>
>> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 <<a href="http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf</a>>) Read the document.<br>
<br>
No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes<br>
><br>
> 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and<br>
> 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal.<br>
><br>
> And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen.<br>
><br>
> Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern.<br>
><br>
> Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that<br>
><br>
> 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy.<br>
> 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it .<br>
> 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they seek at the global level, with justification thereof.<br>
> 4. An OECD IGF should be set up and given the same policy role that OECD countries seek from the global IGF vis a vis global Internet policies. (Or they may want to manage with an expanded EuroDIG)<br>
><br>
> and perhaps a few other points.... (I dont think CCICP meetings are open to observers - that we regularly seek from UN processes, that transcripts of CCICP proceedings are made public - as for instance that of UN WGEC are being made public and so on.......)<br>
><br>
> I wont support it but those here who have asked for a decision making role for business and civil society in public policy making (or even an authoritative agenda-filtering/ vetoing role) should also separately write that the CSISAC and the Business advisory group should be assimilated into the CCICP to make a multistakeholder OECD's Internet Policy Committee (paralleling some proposal with regard to global level submitted to WGEC).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Well, we may not agree on all of it, but are people here ready to take up this issue and begin framing a letter to the OECD?<br>
><br>
> parminder<br>
><br>
> PS: Dixie; There are some other important issues in your email below, which I will respond to separately. This is about what willy nilly come off as efforts to foreclose expression of some kind of views on this list (BestBits). It is really getting 'frustrating' (to use your term) to continually be subject to such emails about what is the 'correct' discourse on this list. The views that I express are all very important to us - the people I work with, and they cant be postponed, because in politics what you dont do can be as important as what you do. Neither it is appreciated to put labels of 'inappropriateness of the manner of their expression' on these views. We are all professionals here and know the terms of civil discourse. But some people seem to be forgetting civil society's role to ask hard question of itself and of others, and tolerate internal 'dissent'.<br>
><br>
>> And I seem to recall many, many civil society speaking against them at the IGF in Nairobi. In fact, the IRP organised a workshop on copyright that year, one of the main agenda issues discussed was concerns with the OECP Internet Policy-Making Principles.<br>
>><br>
>> On the CoE Cybersecurity convention too, I recall huge agreement among civil society that there were serious flaws in the convention, and it was wrong to push it on other countries (and wrong for CoE countries to fully adopt too). In fact, I' specifically remember hearing Anja argue this strongly on many panels.<br>
>><br>
>> I think there is so much agreement among civil society on so many issues, but we >> ,<br>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC<br>
>><br>
>> On Thursday 21 November 2013 05:49 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:<br>
>> As I intend to follow Jon Postel’s adage, this is my last comment on this particular theme.<br>
>> I would never ask anyone to “shut up” as I have worked most of my life to support the free expression of views. But I want BB to be a constructive platform for the exchange of everyone’s views and not spiral down as other networks have done.<br>
>><br>
>> It wont, if you respect other people's views, and not provide meta constructions over them, which you did in your last email, and you still are doing here. What do you mean, 'constructive'.... why do you want to sound like you are speaking to a classroom. And all those stuff of ' old views repeated' , need for new young leadership, straw man argument...<br>
>><br>
>> No matter, I have made my point. And I will still respond to substantive points....<br>
>><br>
>> My point about OECD and CoE was not that they don’t have influence but that I have not seem anyone in civil society defend those institutions as appropriate for global policy making. If that’s not what you meant I apologise for misunderstanding you.<br>
>><br>
>> You described how OECD and CoE did only produce voluntary standards and norms.... I showed how they also facilitate treaties - ACTA and cyber crime convention respectively for instance. The multilateralism that you criticise - say India's CIRP proposal - is also supposed to just do these things.... It is my right and duty to bring up the parallels.<br>
>><br>
>> Now, whether civil society supports the Internet related policy activities or not of OECD and CoE like rich country populated bodies.... When we dont like something we actively write agaisnt it - see the number of letters we so regularly write to the ITU.... When did we write one against OECD's and CoE's global policy efforts? That is my question... One doesnt need to actually put up a statement defending them - it is enough that CS groups participate in these activties and endorse their outcomes (as OECD's Principles were endorsed.) CoE cyber convention is actively being promoted for global uptake - are we ready to write a statement against such an undemocratic practice? The London-Budapest- Seoul series are of the same kind - led by developed countries with attempts to co opt developing countries on a secondary and tertiary level. This process recently produced an globally significant outcome. Many including your organisation participated in the process. But did we say that<br>
>> it is no<br>
>> t right to not treat all countries at the same level..... It is these questions that would keep coming from the global South....<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> When I talk about a state based body I mean something like the Human Rights Council<br>
>> No you spoke about a 'state based body to *run the Internet*' - and I asked which one is this that is proposed to *run the Internet*.... I cant see HRC being such a body....<br>
>><br>
>> – a group of states elected from within the UNGA – which I fear in the current climate will be subject to same geo-political competition that leads to human rights abusers being elected to the HRC to the vast detriment of human rights.<br>
>><br>
>> The other option is to remain subject to US and OECD making global internet related policies....<br>
>> Of course, this does not mean that the current arrangements are satisfactory – and again I have never heard anyone in cs claim they are. I think we are all looking for a governance arrangement that recognised the legitimate interests of states, companies and users and I want that arrangement to have democracy and human rights values in its DNA.<br>
>> I’m keen to explore what that governance structure might be with others in the next few months. My preference is for a dispersed arrangement in which different interests are balanced, but will likely comprise internationalised technical bodies, treaty bodies and national governments, with an enhanced IGF playing a more normative role.<br>
>><br>
>> On the assumption that 'treaty bodies' you mention are inter-gov, this is precisely the constellation I would support. But unlike in OECD and CoE, there is no global body that can anchor norm building and facilitate treaties that may be needed in the area of Internet policies.<br>
>><br>
>> But I’m looking forward to others’ views.<br>
>> And finally, on a personal note – please do not, when you reply to people, accuse them of bad faith, or imply they believe things that they do not.<br>
>><br>
>> That is what you did in your email, Andrew. We could have instead just discussed respective views, agreeing or not.... parminder<br>
>><br>
>> It’s the kind of behaviour that enrages and disillusions people. We all have an obligation to build this community, and this means thinking about our responsibilities to each other as well as our rights to speak freely.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL<br>
>> Executive Director<br>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT<br>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt<br>
>> <a href="http://gp-digital.org" target="_blank">gp-digital.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> From: parminder [<br>
>> mailto:<a>parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
>> ]<br>
>> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38<br>
>> To: Andrew Puddephatt<br>
>> Cc:<br>
>> <a>governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><mailto:<a>governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>; <,<a>bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><mailto:<a>bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>><br>
>> ,<br>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC<br>
>><br>
>> Andrew<br>
>><br>
>> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.<br>
>><br>
>> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue.<br>
>><br>
>> my responses below...<br>
>> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I don’t normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel<br>
>><br>
>> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it....<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'governance@lists.igcaucus.org')">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br><br>--<br>I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.<br>Twitter: @andreaglorioso<br>Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro</a><br>