[bestbits] IGF plus
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Sep 4 10:32:31 EDT 2013
On Wednesday 04 September 2013 07:43 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> To make my position more concrete: I do not think that as an
> initiative from the developing world, we undermine the march forward
> of the OECD in any way by signing a letter addressed to them. On the
> contrary, that only gives them greater legitimacy. Those who are from
> member states could do so, but as far as the rest of us are concerned,
> I think what we need to do is boycott.
Sorry for the extreme example, but sometimes they have an elucidative
role; that would be like, in another era (though not fully bygone),
refusing to oppose the British rule in India because we dont want to
legitimise it by engaging with it even to the extent of opposing it....
This is also a bit strange in my estimate , in the background that
BestBits have recently written to at least two different organs of the
US state urging them to see if they could behave themselves a bit,
petitions which i understand were signed by you....
I cant see how a letter to OECD on the lines that I propose would give
OECD larger legitimacy, when we are writing to tell them that (1) *they
do not have global legitimacy*, and (2) that they are rather
hypocritical in proposing MS models that they themselves dont practice,
Can you please explain how such a letter increases OECD's legitimacy if
the letter BestBits wrote to the US state did not serve to increase US's
legitimacy regarding its overlordship over the global Internet.
parminder
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder and all...
>
> Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
> surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
> discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in
> Bali?
>
> That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
> revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us
> work a
> bit faster.
>
> Apologies for not being able to volunteer.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the
> discussion
> >> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
> >> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
> >> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is
> also what
> >> Avri and Anja are proposing.
> >
> > I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
> > to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one
> subjects
> > - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
> > On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
> > problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
> >>
> >> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some
> letters; we
> >> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil
> society
> >> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees
> on fully,
> >> but it is still a good start).
> >>
> >> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
> >> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite
> specific
> >> ways?
> >
> > Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
> > till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent
> civil
> > society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
> > subject in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
> >>>
> >>> Valeria
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this is a good framing. The only thing I would recommend
> >>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
> >>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to
> be held
> >>>> in the following days.
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Anja
> >>>
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20130904/3d7426a9/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list