[governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Dec 1 11:00:11 EST 2013
On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Here is a factual account of what happened
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/
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 .
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Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is superseded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 ....
http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php
That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which has
got this long thread running...
parminder
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] on
> behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM
> *To:* Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso;
> parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of
> India to the WGEC
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD
> principles or on the related debate re: broader settings.
>
> 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.
>
> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> w
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx>
> im Auftrag von Adam Peake
> Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx>; Andrea
> Glorioso
> Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt;
> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <UrlBlockedError.aspx>>,
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the
> Government of India to the WGEC
>
> I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just
> read the documents, it's pretty clear.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php
> >
> > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet
> Policy Making
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
> > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I
> want to add my 2 cents too!
> > >>
> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the
> principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights
> provision.
> > >>
> > >
> > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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
> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>) Read the
> document.
> >
> > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
> > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder ,
> than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like
> India's CIRP proposal.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > 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 .
> > > 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
> > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
> andrewpuddephatt
> > >> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>
> > >>
> > >> From: parminder [
> > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
> > >> ]
> > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
> > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt
> > >> Cc:
> > >>
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> > >> ,
> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the
> Government of India to the WGEC
> > >>
> > >> Andrew
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> my responses below...
> > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but
> occasionally I feel
> > >>
> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for
> those who are engaging in it....
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with
> myself. Keep it in mind.
> > Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> > LinkedIn:
> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.go
> <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself.
> Keep it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131201/29466879/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list