<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Here is a factual account of what
happened
<div><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
One really wonders why we are not able to settle something which is
a simple matter of fact.... Yes, civil society groups did not
initially sign these principles but later signed a latter version .<br>
<br>
In Dec 2013, if someone says, 'OCED's Internet policy making
principles', what is meant is the final version issues by the OECD
Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is
superseded by the Council document. And civil society groups did
sign the latter Council document ....
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php">http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php</a><br>
<br>
That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which has
got this long thread running...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF887314" style="direction: ltr;"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com">sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com">sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com</a>] on behalf of Andrea
Glorioso [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Adam Peake;
Andrea Glorioso; parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew
Puddephatt; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by
the Government of India to the WGEC<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>To be clear: my understanding is that the
statement that CSOs did endorse a set of principles
produced within the OECD was challenged. It seems to me -
and, unless I misinterpret the relevant messages,
confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a
number of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles
which was acceptable to them.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on
the substance of such principles but on the legitimacy
of policy-making done within "restricted" environments,
especially when such principles / policies have
ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, on
the approach to be taken towards broader settings. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please note that I'm not taking a position either on
the OECD principles or on the related debate re: broader
settings. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of
the rather small IG circle (which are, according to
some, stakeholders as well) are so clear on the details
of who signed what, when and for which reason. <br>
<br>
On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC
endorsement was IPR and intermediarities. The
opposition of CISAC to the two principles was ere
outspoken but ignored by an article in the Washington
Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when
CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did
not change it. In contrary, as the statement -
re-distributed by Andrea - says clearly, CISAC
expected a continuation of the debate around the two
controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the
lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society.
This OECD debate did influence also the final stage of
the elaboration of the Council of Europe principles -
which was negotiated in parallel. In the COE we
avoided controversial OECD language and got the full
endorsement by all parties.<br>
<br>
w<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>
Von: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
im Auftrag von Adam Peake<br>
Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07<br>
An: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
Andrea Glorioso<br>
Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt;
<,<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,<br>
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by
the Government of India to the WGEC<br>
<br>
I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't.
Please, just read the documents, it's pretty clear.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php"
target="_blank">
http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php</a><br>
><br>
> CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles
for Internet Policy Making<br>
> In a press release published on 19 December 2011,
the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles
for Internet Policy Making 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 declined to
support a previous Communique 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.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
><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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 > >> 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gp-digital.org" target="_blank">gp-digital.org</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> From: parminder [<br>
> >> mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
> >> ]<br>
> >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38<br>
> >> To: Andrew Puddephatt<br>
> >> Cc:<br>
> >> <a moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>;
<,<a moz-do-not-send="true">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true">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 moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
> LinkedIn: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">
http://translate.go</a></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso"
target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>