[bestbits] IGF plus
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Sep 4 02:51:48 EDT 2013
Dear Anja
I have no problems with your framing below. However, the points I raised
are somewhat different. Let me clarify them.
On Wednesday 04 September 2013 01:18 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear Parminder and all,
>
> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>
> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept in
> the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend some
> time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To my
> mind, these are among the most important places where states at
> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for civil
> society (I wrote about this earlier
> here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a real
> outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil society is
> aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also closely
> involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around which Best
> Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish of us to now
> retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have made).
I did not say we should not discuss ITU or WSIS. I said we should
discuss all places where global Internet policy making actually takes
place, in the order of intensity of actual processes and outcomes for
the global Internet, rather than be fixated on forum A of forum B. You
would agree that this should be how the civil society looks at things. I
argued that the OECD's CCICP is a major forum for global policy making
at present. And therefore that venue, its outcomes and processes should
also be discussed. That is my point.
I also offered proof, if it were needed, to show that OECD is a major
forum for global policy making. Submissions by ISOC, ICC and many
developed countries to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation say so (while they
hardly mention WSIS +10 or ITU). OECD has the only globally operative
set of Principles for Internet Policy Making, which have real weight and
implication. They are right now being pushed for global implementation.
In fact US's contribution speaks about ' extension of OECD Principles
more globally'. And I also mentioned the new global program ECSA
<http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-%E2%80%94-european-capability-situational-awareness>
to implement one element of these OECD principles.
Does it leave any doubt as to where a big part of global Internet policy
making is taking place? Why should civil society also not focus on this
forum of global Internet policy making? This was my question. Sure do
discuss ITU and WSIS +10 (which developed countries are intent should
not take place except as an insipid bureaucratic event) but also discuss
OECD's global Internet policy making. And since ITU plus WSIS plus OECD
becomes too long a title, I just suggested that it be made more general
as 'Global Internet policy making' and have perhaps three sub sections
under it.
>
> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one long
> session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the morning
> and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I believe that
> the question of how we see multistakeholderism is sharpened by our
> engagements in these concrete policy fora and how we plan to move
> forward in them, while at the same time our engagement with these fora
> is of course also to some extent determined by the visions and views
> we have when we enter them. In that sense I think that by
> contextualising the discussion on MS within those debates, the chances
> that we move forward are far greater, if not in terms of coming to a
> joint position, then at least in terms of understanding we all take
> the positions that we take.
Sure, I agree, let the MS session come after the global policy making
session rather than precede it, and be sufficiently contextualised to
the discussions on policy making processes. I would for instance
certainly want to know why civil society does not recommend IEG model to
OECD's Internet policy making processes as it does for ITU. Or
alternatively, why does it not recommend OECD's CCICP's stakeholder
participation processes, with which the involved civil society seems
fairly satisfied, to ITU rather than the IEG model (which I really dont
fully understand, and to the extend I do, do not see it as a great model).
What I want is a fullish discussion - which starts on this list - about
what different people and groups really understand by MSism in policy
processes, and how do they ideally see it play out and implemented. I,
for instance, really dont now what would your ideal policy development
mechanism look like? And so about many others here.... I repeat, that is
the major areas of lack of understanding among us here, and it is best
that we can at least agree on the technical meaning of terms, as we
individually may seek to apply them.
>
> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
> society not only in having important discussions, but also in getting
> concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days in Bali in
> the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both counts.
I am always for concrete outcomes, that go in concrete directions. So, I
agree... From the MS discussion, lets try to get to some principles of
what we think MSism is, and how it should actually be applied in policy
making, and policy deliberations and consultations. And how MS
representation should be constituted. That would be a singular
contribution to the area of global governance of the Internet. And from
the earlier discussion on global Internet policy making spaces, we can
have an outcome in terms what should civil society do in each case, and
what are the dangers and what are the opportunities...
Parminder
>
> Best regards,
> Anja
>
>
> On 3 September 2013 22:27, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:16 PM, parminder wrote:
>> Jeremy
>>
>> My impression was that just a draft of the programhas been put
>> forward and it has still to go through discussions and approval
>> of the group before finalisation.. Is my impression right?
>>
>> On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I really think
>> we should have at least a full half session on what really is
>> multistakeholderism. And that subject alone. I really am not sure
>> what most people here think it is . There is this silence zone
>> around its theory and practice. I have raised the question often.
>> I think if there is one difference that groups like IT for Change
>> have with many other groups in the IG space, it is about an
>> understanding of MSism... And while there can be real political
>> differences, I dont see why we should have such technical
>> differences, just on the meaning and understanding of terms. Lets
>> try to thrash it out forever. And we can start this discussion
>> here itself, on this list. Importantly, I saw strong support on
>> this list for a specific discussion on what is MSism. I think
>> these views should be respected.
>>
>> I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to rather on Public
>> policy making on global IG.... The responses to questionaire
>> issued by the WG on enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many
>> developing countries
>
> sorry, i meant developed countries
>
>> cite OECD as one important place where global Internet policy
>> making takes place. At least now can we take it that indeed a lot
>> of Internet policy making takes place in OECD. (See the posting
>> today on the IGC list declaring a project implementing - globally
>> - some parts of the OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making).
>> why do we only keep asking questions of UN based Internet policy
>> processes, and not from places where some real policy making
>> takes place.... We should discuss OECD's *global* Internet policy
>> making processes as well. And if we want the IEG (Informal
>> Experts Group) as the standard model by which ITU whould do its
>> Internet related polciy work, why do we hesitate to tell OECD
>> that it should use the same model, and none else.... What I
>> suggesting here is - Name this session - Where does global
>> Internet policy making take place, how, and what should CS do.
>>
>> Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why are we not
>> ready to to name session three directly as NSA or Snowden issue
>> (something stated a little better). The world thinks that global
>> IG has changed forever because of what Snowden has told us about
>> NSA.... That is not just the regular surveillance issue, that we
>> have been talking in all IGFs and should keep doing. There is a
>> clear Snowden impact on the global Internet - a huge impact. And
>> we need to specifically discuss what this impact is, and how US
>> has to be confronted in its (still largely unapologetic) global
>> surveillance. That is a specific issue. And Again I saw great
>> support for discussing this particular issue at length, but in
>> the current draft this issue seem to be hidden as about one sixth
>> of a session, that too without mentioning the main actors, NSA,
>> US gov and Snowden.
>>
>> thanks. parminder
>>
>>
>> On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...
>>>
>>> (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my
>>> return to the office today.) We don't have one full day
>>> available for this at the Best Bits meeting, unless we take out
>>> other things that people want to do, but I've added this as a
>>> sub-item to the draft agenda for Bali for the Day 1 morning,
>>> under the rather broad heading "Global Internet governance
>>> principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".
>>>
>>> Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that
>>> session, you can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis
>>> between sub-topics for discussion. Most surely, we could spend
>>> a full week rather than two days if we were to cover everything
>>> in the depth it deserves.
>>>
>>> I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the
>>> steering committee, and separately the other nominated
>>> facilitators) about this. Meanwhile I'm working on getting the
>>> registration system going, and Access are working on crowd
>>> funding for those who need support to participate.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
>>> consumers*
>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>>> Lumpur, Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>> knowledge hub
>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> |
>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/04a9c7b5/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list