[bestbits] IGF plus

Wed Sep 4 10:01:35 EDT 2013

Let me add some points here....

It does not matter if we dont recognise OECD process as 'globally' 
legitimate (of course I dont), the point remains that this particular 
process is the most potent one right now in terms of global Internet 
policy making. How can we simply turn our face away from it. Its outputs 
are being sold/ pushed through plurilateral and bilateral forums. The 
forthcomng Seoul Cyber conference, of the lineage of the London Cyber 
conference, is the kind of place where real work happens, and principles 
developed at OECD etc are incorporated into meeting outcomes selectively 
taking in concurrence of a selective wider set of countries - whose 
fears and greedy hopes are continually played on.

Whether the processes around OECD's CICCP are dense, or there are civil 
society groups already involved (which as I suggested seem to have 
different conceptions of multistakeholderism inside and outside OCECD), 
does not make it an inappropriate subject for BestBits....

Also remember that OECD model of global policy making has traditionally 
been a big issue with developing countries. (It recently played in the 
UN with regard to distribution of tax from global commerce. Please see 
this <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/2012/268/cover04.htm>. 
)  With Internet being essentially global, the default application of 
OECD policies on a global scale is even more severe. This is an 
important global issue that needs to be taken up. It is a developing 
countries issue.

Anja, no I have seen no discussion on OECD model of global policy making 
in the IG space.... Yes, I do occasionally pose questions but they are 
never responded to. Therefore the discussion is still pending. and this 
is a good time to have it.

I also have a specific issue on the MS (multistakeholderism) model that 
civil society pushes. Should we not be consistent across different 
spaces with regard to our preferred model. I know I am repeating this 
question.... I understand that the mandate of OECD's Committee for 
Computer, Information and Communication Policy is up for renewal towards 
the end of 2013 (I may be wrong and can be corrected). Would global 
civil society not want to propose that this important site of global 
policy making becomes what it considered as really multistakeholder.... 
Should we not write to them about it, as we write to the ITU.

So, the proposed concrete outcomes are as follows:

Consequent to our discussion at the face to face meeting, we write to 
the OECD;

(1) On substantive issues, that the OECD should not push the policy 
framework that it produces as global ones, and if indeed it sees the 
need of global policy frameworks it must develop them at appropriate 
global forums

(2) On the process issue, that OECD's Internet policy mechanism, ie 
CICCP, should adopt the multistakeholder model of policy development 
that OECD countries advocate (along with civil society) for global 
Internet policy forums. The proposed renewal of CICCP's mandate in Dec 
2013 is a good opportunity to do this.

parminder

On Wednesday 04 September 2013 06:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> Anja and all,
>
> In the absence of alternative sets of principles with any degree of 
> broad based support and given the political, economic and technology 
> signifiicance of the OECD countries any position on something as 
> significant as this cannot/should not be ignored and particularly by a 
> CS concerned with global developments.
>
> M
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:32 PM
> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm
> *Cc:* Andrew Puddephatt; anriette at apc.org; Valeria Betancourt; 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF plus
>
> For those not living in a member state of the OECD, that process is 
> not necessarily one they would like get involved in though, as that 
> will only help to give credence to claims that the OECD principles are 
> 'global' ones.
>
> Which is one of the main reason swhy building a unified approach on 
> this at the next BB meeting will likely be difficult: different groups 
> and individuals just look at that process in radically different ways. 
> I agree that more discussion would be valuable in fact (and would be 
> very eager to get more regular updates from those who are involved), 
> but don't think that at present, the Best Bits meeting is the best 
> place to do so.
>
> FYI: the Internet Democracy Project does not consider the OECD or its 
> principles as global in nature, and whenever such a claim is made, we 
> oppose this explicitly (as we do when similar references are made to 
> the Budapest convention).
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
> On 4 September 2013 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
>
>
> That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more 
> theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need 
> to have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing 
> and/or engaging in.
>
> And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how 
> we can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented 
> one. I have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists 
> (even if without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and 
> don't yet see where there could be common ground to move forward among 
> the varous stances that seem to exist on the OECD.
>
> If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy 
> to hear them.
>
> The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are 
> covered a different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is 
> significant cross membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply 
> "dip your toes" into what goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we 
> try to do so.  However better reporting from CSISAC to its own members 
> and broader civil society is definitely needed (its website is two 
> years out of date, to start with), and something that we are trying to 
> make happen.  As always, resource constraints apply.
>
> -- 
>
> *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/20130904/3530e799/attachment.htm>