[bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul

[parminder]

On Wednesday 09 October 2013 08:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Yes, right, recently added -- but 60% of its population is affected by
> poverty, as a study by a Chilean researcher shows (despite its
> relatively high so-called HDI). A situation similar to Mexico. So, in
> summa, being in OECD does not mean sitting in a higher development layer.
>
> --c.a.

Yes, certainly, that is the rich countries' plan for further global 
domination and exploitation. Which can be called a new wave of neo 
colonialism, To break developing country solidarity - the way they would 
for instance break workers movements. Pull a Mexico and Chile into the 
OECD. Allure a Peru and Vietnam into the Trans Pacific Partnership.. 
.... That is simply diabolical and most dangerous to global justice.... 
But here we have people gladly supporting such processes of undemocratic 
rule over the world.... This is about people's rights, not just some 
narrowly defined rights frameworks which, not incidentally, happen to 
perfectly coincide with economic agendas of some powerful countries.... 
parminder


>
> On 10/09/2013 11:00 AM, parminder wrote:
>>   
>> Chile too now is an OECD member.....
>>
>> On the larger issue, I am rather surprised and disappointed at the
>> robust support from developing country people of the OECD 'global'
>> Internet policy making model - both the process and substance of which
>> being hugely problematic.... I dont have the time right now to engage
>> into a discussion, but could not resist expressing my strong feeling in
>> general about the issue...
>>
>> Democracy is in itself important, it is not a
>> if-we-disregard-the-process-issue thing..... And BTW, when it comes to
>> multistakeholderism, the same
>> lets-for-the-moment-disregard-the-process-issue proposition never seems
>> not to apply. Is multistakeholderism then a higher value than democracy?
>>
>> OECD is a centre price of 'global' Internet policy making today, which
>> is then exported through one to one or plurilateral deals to developing
>> countries... It is  a fact that many developing countries fall prey to
>> this unprincipled approach on narrow short term self interest
>> consideration.... And playing developing countires against one another
>> through such short term deals is  a major US/ OECD method of spreading
>> their regime globally. This is a major axis of global digital
>> domination.. Civil society interested in democratic values should simply
>> and roundly criticise such models of global policy making. That is the
>> only basic attitude that can be taken towards them.
>>
>> The developing countries who have signed some of the mentioned OECD
>> documents, are never a part of the core discussions, agenda framing and
>> final formulation -- and so to pass off their sign on as a measure of
>> they being a part of the process is a very undemocratic take..... Rest
>> later.... parmidner
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 07:14 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>> To add some more "spice": both Chile and Mexico are still developing
>>> countries (may be listed as "emerging countries" in some circles), and
>>> while Chile is not in the OECD, Mexico is.
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 10/08/2013 11:47 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>> Pranesh,
>>>>
>>>> You are providing a very peculiar list of "developing" countries--"Chile,
>>>> Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Senegal, Turkey".
>>>>
>>>> Of which three belong to the EU (Hungary, Latvia, Poland), one is a very
>>>> strong aspirant to the EU (Turkey), and two others are very strong aspirants
>>>> (based on income) to the OECD (Chile and Mexico)...
>>>>
>>>> By my, and I believe most reckonings there are 3 actual DC's in your list
>>>> (from some 130?? or so)--India, Indonesia, and Senegal--hardly a sufficient
>>>> number to be drawing any useful conclusions from.
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 10:04 PM
>>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul
>>>>
>>>> A top note that the OECD principles are actually
>>>> OECD+Egypt+Business+Tech principles, which CISAC helped shape but didn't
>>>> sign on to.  Rest inline:
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm [2013-10-08 00:04]:
>>>>> On 08/10/13 09:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>>>>>> Focussing on the policymaking principles outlined in the OECD communiqu:
>>>>>> apart from process related issues of lack of representation of
>>>>>> developing world governments, in terms of substance how would a
>>>>>> statement of principles that had developing world participation look
>>>>>> different?
>>>>> There is only one way to find out, and that is to deal with the
>>>>> process related issues.  But for a rough idea, we can look at the
>>>>> Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>>>> Notable additions compared to the OECD principles:
>>>>>
>>>>>    * *Universality:* Internet access must be universal so that it becomes
>>>>>      a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the
>>>>>      formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society, for the
>>>>>      benefit of all
>>>>>    * *Standardization and interoperability:* The Internet must be based
>>>>>      on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to
>>>>>      participate in its development
>>>> On standards, the OECD principles (under "Promote the open, distributed and
>>>> interconnected nature of the Internet") states:
>>>>
>>>> "The Internet's openness also stems from globally accepted, consensus driven
>>>> technical standards that support global product markets and communications.
>>>> The roles, openness, and competencies of the global multi-stakeholder
>>>> institutions that govern standards for different layers of Internet
>>>> components should be recognised and their contribution should be sought on
>>>> the different technical elements of public policy objectives."
>>>>
>>>>>    * *Neutrality of the network:* Filtering or traffic privileges must
>>>>>      meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political,
>>>>>      commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of
>>>>>      discrimination or preferential treatment
>>>> "Maintaining technology neutrality and appropriate quality for all Internet
>>>> services is also important to ensure an open and dynamic Internet
>>>> environment. Provision of open Internet access services is critical for the
>>>> Internet economy."
>>>>
>>>>> and notable omissions:
>>>>>
>>>>>    * Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and
>>>> services;
>>>>>    * Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services;
>>>>>    * Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct;
>>>>>    * Maximise individual empowerment;
>>>>>    * Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More could be written about this, but there is a very different
>>>>> emphasis with the OECD principles much more individualistic and biased
>>>>> towards trade, than the Brazilian principles.
>>>> OECD is primarily about economic/trade issues (though not solely about such
>>>> issues), so that bias is perhaps to be expected.  In the 2008 Seoul
>>>> Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy, there were 10 developing
>>>> countries (Chile, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Latvia, Mexico, Poland,
>>>> Senegal, Turkey) represented in the 39 individual countries that signed the
>>>> declaration. Sure, the developing countries were outnumbered 3:1, but they
>>>> still agreed to:
>>>>
>>>> * Ensure respect for intellectual property rights.
>>>> * Create a market-friendly environment for convergence that encourages
>>>> infrastructure investment, higher levels of connectivity and innovative
>>>> services and applications.
>>>> * Promote Internet-based innovation, competition, and user choice.
>>>> * Acting as a key driver for the creation of enterprises and communities and
>>>> stimulating closer global co-operation.
>>>> * Promote the secure and responsible use of the Internet that respects
>>>> international social and ethical norms and that increases transparency and
>>>> accountability.
>>>> * Establish a regulatory environment that assures a level playing field for
>>>> competition.
>>>> * Stimulate investment and competition in the development of high capacity
>>>> information and communication infrastructures and the delivery of
>>>> Internet-enabled services within and across borders.
>>>> * Maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information,
>>>> research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation.
>>>> * Combine efforts to combat digital piracy with innovative approaches which
>>>> provide creators and rights holders with incentives to create and
>>>> disseminate works in a manner that is beneficial to creators, users and our
>>>> economies as a whole.
>>>> * Increase cross-border co-operation of governments and enforcement
>>>> authorities in the areas of improving cyber-security, combating spam, as
>>>> well as protecting privacy, consumers and minors.
>>>> * Empowering consumers and users in online transactions and exchanges.
>>>>
>>>> Most (all?) of the things that you'd think developing countries would omit
>>>> were accepted by 10 of them.  Just sayin'.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Pranesh
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pranesh Prakash
>>>> Policy Director
>>>> Centre for Internet and Society
>>>> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter:
>>>> @pranesh_prakash
>>>> -------------------+
>>>> Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society
>>>> Project, Yale Law School
>>>> T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131009/d5a32df2/attachment.htm>