[governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC
Tamir Israel
tisrael at cippic.ca
Sun Dec 1 14:33:39 EST 2013
That's right Parminder.
To be really precise, what CSISAC was willing to live with was the
principles themselves:
1. Promote and protect the global free flow of information;
2. Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet;
3. Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services;
4. Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services;
5. Encourage multi-stakeholder co-operation in policy development processes;
6. Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct;
7. Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into
the policy-making process;
8. Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability;
9. Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a
global level;
10. Maximise individual empowerment;
11. Promote creativity and innovation;
12. Limit Internet intermediary liability;
13. Encourage co-operation to promote Internet security;
14. Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts.
which are relatively harmless as extremely high level statements. What
CSISAC rejected was the more detailed explanation of how they are to be
applied. There were many problems with the way the principles were
intended to be applied, relating mostly to intermediary liability and
IPR enforcement.
Best,
Tamir
On 12/1/2013 11:00 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> 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 superseded by the Council document.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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> <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
>> <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/20131201/3f271163/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131201/3f271163/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list