From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Mon Feb  1 04:15:33 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:15:33 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
 recommendations
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNDtVkbWFiGLEwgDhqeKWsS9C2ySr4vfpK0yO3HVyWfPrw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Best Bits members,

I'm pleased to pass to you below the nominations and recommendations of the
CSCG nominating committee with regards to the civil society representation
on MAG 2016.

The CSCG Nomcom is co-chaired by Ginger (Virginia) Paque and Ian Peter,
and the team composed of
​Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits),
Analia Aspis (Internet Governance Caucus),
Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), and
Parminder Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition).

Hoping the CSCG nomcom recommendations would be considered for the
enhancement of selection for the civil society representations on MAG.

Best wishes,
Nadira Alaraj


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:14 AM
Subject: [cs-coord] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
recommendations
To: CSCG NomCom for 2016 MAG appointments <nomcom05 at internetgov-cs.org>,
cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org


(text below is also attached in document form)



Dear Chengetai, IGF Secretariat, and MAG selection committee(s),



First, we wish to thank you for your past co-operation with us in aiming to
ensure the best possible representation for civil society in the IGF
Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). We were pleased that you were able
to accept all but one of our suggested nominations last year, and also our
suggestions for speakers at IGF. We look forward to further strengthening
this collaboration, in line with various recommendations calling for
greater legitimacy, transparency and stakeholder involvement in such
processes



The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a
co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making
civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives
of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive
Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and the
Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these
groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well
as a great number of individuals. In addition, the CSCG receives
recommendations of non-affiliated individuals and groups who chose to voice
their endorsements through the CSCG mechanism. The CSCG represents the five
largest groupings of civil society organisations addressing Internet
governance issues. We also work in collaboration with other initiatives in
the UN, but also outside of it (such as the Netmundial Conference in Brazil
in 2014 and the subsequent Netmundial Initiative).



We are pleased to forward the following civil society endorsements for
candidates for the 2016 MAG renewal.



The Nomcom considered 16 names submitted via our networks, which are
attached as Appendix 1. For the record, we also asked to be privy to any
other civil society nominations forwarded to you from other sources, and,
for full transparency, all civil society stakeholder group applications,
which we ideally should have considered fully and without discrimination,
but we were told this was not possible.  However if there are other names
you are considering, we offer our services to give you confidential
assessment of any such candidates.



In completing our task, we note that three candidates designated by you as
civil society representatives have terms ending this year; two from LAC
region and one from Asia. (Fatima Cambronero, Desiree Zachariah, and Subi
Chaturvedi)



In considering replacements, we have looked at a number of considerations,
the most important of which at this particular time, are:



First, to restore the balance of LAC region representation, to replace
retiring civil society members, we recommend:



   1. *Julian Casasbuenas*. Julian is a member of the Association for
   Progressive Communications (APC), and has been attending IGF since 2006.
   He was involved in the organization of LAC regional IGF meetings and
   participated actively as a reporter and speaker in these events. In 2012
   his organization, Colnodo, was co-organizer with .CO Internet of the Fifth
   IGF LAC meeting that was held in Bogotá Colombia.

   2. *Renata Aquino Ribeiro*. Renata is currently a professor in the IT
   Campus at Quixadá City in Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. In 2014, she
   was a researcher in social development, technology and education at
   Business and Economics Faculty (FEAAC) at Federal University of Ceará
   (UFC). For the last decade, she has followed the Internet governance
   debates such as regional IGFs and ICANN53 participation as a fellow,
   Brazilian Internet School of Governance 2014 fellow, South School of
   Internet Governance 2015 fellow, LACRALO ALS Nexti participant, and NCUC
   participant in ICANN.



Our second and third major considerations are to increase voices speaking
for the geo-political global south, and to add to the level of experience
in internet governance matters of civil society participation. We believe
this can be done with one specific candidate. i.e.:



3. *Norbert Bollow*. Norbert has a background in mathematics, physics and
IT, and he also has many years of experience in civil society activism on a
wide range of information society topics including advocacy for human
rights and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). He has participated in the
consultations that preceded the first IGF and he has since then
participated in many IGFs, including several times as a workshop organizer.
He has been a co-coordinator of Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
Norbert is currently a co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition
http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-members, an international civil society
coalition of 35 organisations and networks, most of them South based, with
a focus on demands that the Internet must advance human rights and social
justice, and that Internet governance must be truly democratic.



Our fourth consideration is to gain representation from the MENA region,
which currently has no civil society representation; and at the same time
to strengthen our African presence. To this end we endorse:



4. *Rasha Abdulla*.  Dr. Rasha A. Abdulla is Associate Professor (tenured)
and Past Chair of Journalism and Mass Communication at the American
University in Cairo. She has a Ph.D. in Communication (December 2003) from
the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. She is the proud
recipient of several teaching and research awards. Her current research
interests focus on the Internet as a medium. Her doctoral dissertation was
the first large scale academic study of the uses and gratifications of the
Internet among Arab students in Egypt...



Thank you for your consideration of these candidates. Please note that, in
addition to addressing matters of geographical and gender balance, civil
society, like other stakeholders, needs to consider geopolitical balance
and the need to ensure that all stakeholder voices are represented. What
might appear to be simple changes to the representation we suggest can be
quite problematic for us, and result in either imbalance in representation
or in inappropriate candidates being selected. To avoid these problems
which have occurred in the past, we do suggest that, should you be looking
at appointing anyone as a civil society representative not on our list of
endorsements, you discuss this in confidence with our coordinators. In
addition to any names you might have received individually, we recognise
that there are a number of excellent candidates from distinct geographic
regions who applied to be nominated through CSCG who we were unable to
include in our limited number of endorsements above, that might come into
consideration in such discussions.



Given the investment in the important process of (perceived) legitimacy,
balance, transparency and consensus, we feel strongly that selections
should be done with our collaboration. This enhanced co-operation and
consultation can assist to ensure the best possible civil society
representation, a goal we all share. This also addresses the recommendation
of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by UN
General Assembly, seeking ‘self-management’ of stakeholder representative
process by respective stakeholder groups.  We are open for further
discussion on this point and other relevant recommendations of the
mentioned Working Group.



Finally, we do think that, in the light of recommendations in the mentioned
CSTD WG and in Netmundial, calling for greater legitimacy, transparency and
stakeholder involvement in such processes, it would be appropriate in
coming months to review the IGF MAG selection processes, to align them more
with emerging best practice in ensuring stakeholder representation and also
overall transparency. We offer our services to work with you and other
stakeholder representative organisations towards this objective, which we
consider imperative to have in place for the 2017 MAG selection process.



Sincerely,





​​
Virginia Paque and Ian Peter

Non-voting Co Chairs CSCG



*Nomcom members:* Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits), Analia Aspis (Internet
Governance Caucus), Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), Parminder
Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition)

*The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and
conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside
bodies. Our procedures can be viewed at
http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures
<http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures>*








*APPENDIX ONE*

*CANDIDATES EVALUATED BY CSCG NOMCOM *



*Julian Casasbuenas (LAC)**

*Renata Aquino Ribeiro (LAC)**

*Norbert Bollow (WEOG*)*

*Rasha Abdulla (Africa)**

Renata Avila (LAC)

Wisdom Kwasi Donkor (Africa)

Isaque Manteiga Joaquim (Africa)

Olevie Kouami (Africa)

Glenn McKnight (WEOG)

Jeremy Malcolm (WEOG)

Joseph Marc Antoine Ridore (Africa)

Grigori Saghyan (WEOG)

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Asia-Pacific)

AbdulRasheed Tamton (Africa)

Arsene Tungali (Africa)

Deidre Williams (LAC)



_______________________________________________
CS-coord mailing list
CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org
http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord




--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160201/1aee228b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSCG MAG 2016 endorsements and recommendations.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 79530 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160201/1aee228b/attachment.pdf>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Tue Feb  2 09:53:25 2016
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 20:23:25 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: WSIS Forum 2016 -Official
 submission deadline 30 January
In-Reply-To: <CAOz-jXTGeJDEfWMsof=JskYZV=b_zOd_SM6=Fzr3wock8YGkOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b505bd93bb964a06b6d55e2a8950f0af@TUCM02.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG>
 <CAJqNAHAR6Kz0iFP6ymF2Brje3gP7Luv2oweA1X+VamWa257zDA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOz-jXTGeJDEfWMsof=JskYZV=b_zOd_SM6=Fzr3wock8YGkOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDcXr9SBgwMoQFb6EN+qDCd_wDQGDkvOXiJcPCM2KED8g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Chris,

The answer to the first question is definitely yes. For the second one,
perhaps better to check with the ITU directly?

And you are right indeed, the deadline is now 8 February, so I hope many
more people will consider submitting!

All the best,
Anja



On 2 February 2016 at 01:03, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku <
udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng> wrote:

> Hello Anja and others,
>
> Does this call for submissions for WSIS 2016 mean that any person among us
> can make a submission? And can two forms be submitted from one
> organisation? I noticed the *due date* *has been moved to* *8 February*.
>
> Many thanks,
> Chris
>
> CPU
> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> *Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D.*
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The ITU is making some genuine efforts this year to try and improve the
>> value of the WSIS Forum, including through shaking up the format a bit.
>> They're very keen to hear the suggestions from civil society as well. Do
>> please consider making a contribution. It seems that even if it comes a day
>> or two late, it can still be considered.
>>
>> For more information, please see the message below.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>
>> Dear Sir/ Madam
>>
>>
>>
>> Wish you a happy new year! This is to draw your attention to the deadline
>> of the official submission to the WSIS FORUM 2016 Open Consultation process. The
>> deadline is 30th January 2016. The official submission form is available
>> here: http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/OCP/Submissions
>>
>>
>>
>> Your submission is very important for us as the Agenda and Programme is
>> built from the submissions received. This will also allow you to request
>> for workshops, exhibition spaces,  identify topics and provide suggestions
>> on the format.
>>
>>
>>
>> We look forward to your submission before the deadline.
>>
>>
>>
>> We remain at your disposal for any further information
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Gitanjali
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160202/b5fc535a/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Tue Feb  2 10:03:32 2016
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:03:32 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] CfP Internet, Participation, and Democracy:
 Opportunities for the Global South
Message-ID: <D2D62146.4A296%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>



> *please circulate widely*
> 
> 
> Call for Papers
> Internet, Participation, and Democracy: Opportunities for the Global South
> Abstracts (300 words) are due February 12th
> Please direct questions and abstracts to this email: mexsocwarwick at gmail.com
> <mailto:mexsocwarwick at gmail.com>
> 
> 
> This one-day conference will be hosted at the University of Warwick, UK, and
> will take place on March 17th
> 
> 
>     The Internet is being used as a tool to fill the gaps on previous
> structures of scrutiny, surveillance, authority and governance. The role
> social platforms have played in social uprisings highlights the attempts to
> exploit Internet affordances in order to trigger both the disrupting power and
> the potential for organization of new media and communication technologies.
> During the Arab Spring, Facebook and Twitter were used to organize
> horizontally structured demonstrations, while in Iceland they served as tools
> of engagement for the drafting of a new constitution. Blogs are constantly
> being used as precarious ways to speak where human right issues do not allow
> dissidence; organization to enact legitimate forms of protest are now
> seamlessly made through social media; traditional democratic processes have
> adapted to new technological channels, while new democratic efforts have also
> arisen empowered by digital tools. Both anti-systemic and systemic political
> agendas are being enabled and extended by Internet technology.
>     We are interested in critical readings of these events; novel approaches
> into the politics of the networks; challenges and opportunities of the
> Internet as a tool for democratization, participation and collective action
> worldwide and particularly in the Global South. The conference Internet,
> Participation and Society is an invitation to deal with new proposals and
> views of this field of inquiry. It will bring together academics and civic
> society innovators to discuss and analyse the disruptive impact of the
> Internet and more importantly to hint to new ways in which it can be use to
> increase public scrutiny and political engagement in the developing regions.
>  
> We particularly welcome papers on:
> 
> 
> € Social media as organization tool
> € E-democracy
> € Political uses of social media in the global south
> € Decentralized governance
> € Political engagement
> € Authority challenges
> € Cartographic politics
> € Disruption and disobedience via new media
> € Open-source government
> € Hacker culture and cryptopolitics
> 
> 
> Relevant topics for the conference include, but are not limited to:
> 
> 
> € How are social and economic organisations renewed by communication
> technologies?
> € How media actors and media technologies are changing relationship between
> civil society and the state?
> € What is the role of the media in promoting democratic governance?
> € What kind of entities emerge from the encounter between traditional politics
> and e-democracy?
> € How are media strengthens democratic governance in the global south?
> € How digital communications are challenging traditional and hegemonic streams
> of information?
> € What patterns of governance are being shaped by media technologies?
> € Does new media creates its own set of inequality participatory mechanisms?
> € How to deal with the former problems arose by social media and other
> Internet technologies?
> 
> 
> Keynote speakers:
> Prof. Christian Fuchs // University of Westminster, UK
> Dr. Paolo Gerbaudo // University College London, UK
> Dr. Joss Hands // University of New Castle, UK
> 
> 
> We look forward to welcome you in Warwick
> 
> 
> Warwick Mexican Society




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160202/747f60cb/attachment.htm>

From aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in  Wed Feb  3 01:31:11 2016
From: aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in (Aarti Bhavana)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:01:11 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Accountability blog series
Message-ID: <CAF0Y8V3oU4KbVstfr1WappMu016x-sZLKJ1Jrt7YzMZVxuW-ow@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,



The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) has started a blog series on
the recent developments in the ICANN Accountability process that is crucial
to the IANA Transition. As you may be aware, the Cross Community Working
Group-Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has been working hard to address
the concerns raised by the ICANN Board, Chartering Organisations and other
public comments in response to the third draft proposal.



Over the next few weeks as we head closer to ICANN 55, we shall dissect and
discuss each of the 12 recommendations.You can read the first post here
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-1/>
.



As always, we welcome your inputs and comments.


Warm regards,

Aarti






Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi |
Sector-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91)
11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/>
|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160203/7bdf4a89/attachment.htm>

From yannis at registry.asia  Wed Feb  3 09:57:13 2016
From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 22:57:13 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF Taipei 2016 - Extended Workshop Deadline &
 Fellowship Application Now Available!
References: <C68D9F3F-1637-4880-920E-7B34E87083DC@aprigf.asia>
Message-ID: <7BC8FE14-AB24-41F0-9595-5C3CD3E2BC58@registry.asia>



Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
APrIGF Taipei 2016
27 Jul - 29 Jul 2016
NTUH International Convention Center
http://2016.aprigf.asia <http://2016.aprigf.asia/>

Extended Workshop Proposal Deadline 
Despite receiving many good workshop proposals, the MSG has decided to further extend the submission deadline to allow more interested members from the community to develop their proposals. (Submitted proposals can be viewed here <http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/submit/>.)

Overarching Theme:
 "A New Internet Era - Merging Physical Space with Cyberspace”. More details on the suggested sub-themes could be found at http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/themes/ <http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/themes/>.

Online Submission Form: http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/ <http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/>
Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 2 Feb 2016 (Tue), 24:00 UTC 16 Feb 2016 (Tue), 24:00 UTC
**Read the online submission guide before you submit a proposal!

Fellowship Application Now Available! 
To encourage participation and enhance the diversity and multi-stakeholder concept of APrIGF, fellowship opportunity is available for the APrIGF 2016 registrants. For more details of the application guideline and evaluation criteria, please go to http://2016.aprigf.asia/fellowship/ <http://2016.aprigf.asia/fellowship/>.

Fellowship Application Deadline: 29 Feb 2016, 24:00 UTC

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.

If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription request.

We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please visit the 2016 website <http://2016.aprigf.asia/sponsorship/> or contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more information.

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.aprigf.asia/>








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160203/93814eb5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APrIGF2016_web_banner.png
Type: image/png
Size: 778913 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160203/93814eb5/attachment.png>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Feb  4 15:14:19 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:14:19 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Net neutrality in Brazil: the debate continues
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfENUQ_6p5j91U_SK13cACOuYudDaXkgP7JH-3rN3VCEQ@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.internetlab.org.br/en/internetlab-reports/net-neutrality-in-brazil/

February 4, 2016

| Next >

Net neutrality in Brazil: the debate continues

On January 27th this year, the Brazilian Ministry of Justice released
the second phase of the online public debate about how the Marco Civil
da Internet’ regulatory decree will be.

In this second phase, citizens are asked to give an opinion on a draft
decree suggested by the Ministry of Justice, drawn from the more than
1,200 comments made during the first phase. The debate keep addressing
how the Marco Civil’ general rules and obligations about net
neutrality, privacy and data retention should be detailed and put into
practice.

InternetLab produced a report about the this first phase. Our idea was
to disclose what was at stake and what regulatory alternatives were
being proposed by different participants on the online platform. Based
on this first phase report we could analyze what were the choices made
by the Ministry of Justice on its draft decree provided to the second
phase and continue to reveal the controversies and conflicts of
positions. The first issue we will address is network neutrality.

Homepage of the Marco Civil’ regulatory decree online debate platform



Network neutrality: exceptions, enforcement and zero rating

The approval of the Marco Civil da Internet’ net neutrality rule was
seen by many observators as a major step regarding internet rights in
Brazil. However, the debate about the application and enforcement of
this rule was controversial during the first phase of the online
debate about the regulatory decree, especially on how to define the
exceptions to the rule, how to monitor compliance and whether or not
zero rating plans are forbidden by the law. The controversy became
clear between participants representing telecommunication companies
and civil society organizations – scholars and other actors
participated in a less confrontational way.



The two exceptions to net neutrality

During the first phase of the online debate we reported a conflict of
arguments regarding this matter. On the one hand, telecommunications
companies and their representatives advocated for freedom in network
management, on the other hand, citizens, civil society organizations
and some academics have called for stricter rules.

The two cases of exception to network neutrality, that is, situations
in which it is permitted to treat differently data packets that travel
over the internet, are already listed in the Marco Civil (article 9,
paragraph 1): (i) technical requirements for adequate provision of
services and applications and (ii) prioritization of emergency
services. The decree that is being discussed have the task to explain
and define such exceptions, written in broad terms.

First exception: technical requirements essential for the proper
delivery of services and applications

The first exception address an everyday necessity: to perform certain
level of traffic management to ensure network normal operation. This
management enables, for example, that the internet infraestructure
companies provide a minimum connectivity to their customers in cases
of network congestion or even curb security problems as “denial of
service attacks (DoS)” when there is an intentional overload in
traffic with some purpose.

While the telecommunications industry defended the adoption of
principles that could guide the enforcement, organized civil society
have called for the decree to bring one “exhaustive list” of permitted
behavior, that is, it expressly authorize what would be allowed as
“technical requirements”. The draft placed under discussion by the
Ministry of Justice is a mix of both – it exhaustively sets out
situations in which the exception exists, but in generic terms.

This criticism of the generality of the hypothesis of “technical
requirements” should not be unanimous, but has already made public. In
arecent debate at Campus Party 2016 Veridiana Alimonti, from the
Collective Intervozes, argued that the possibility of exception in
case of “treatment of essential issues for the proper enjoyment of
applications, in view of the user experience quality assurance” of the
draft would be too open and generic, making room for violation of net
neutrality – a position that has been endorsed by participants in this
second phase.

Second exception: prioritizing emergency services

The second hypothesis of network neutrality exception was not a huge
subject of controversy in the online platform during the first phase.
However, participants highlighted some guidelines that should be
followed by regulations like a better explanation on what would be an
emergency service that allowed traffic management.

The draft decree addresses the issue and sets out the situations in
which a communication service is considered “emergency”: “notices to
providers of emergency services, as provided for the National
Telecommunications Agency regulations; or communications necessary to
inform the population on disaster risk situations of emergency or
state of public calamity“.



How should be the net neutrality rule enforcement?

The enforcement of network neutrality rule generated great debate in
the first phase of consultation. The controversy revolved around the
centrality of the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL). While
the telecommunications companies and some citizens defended the
prevalence of ANATEL as the competent agency for enforcing the net
neutrality rule, civil society organizations have suggested the
construction of a “multi-institutional” system that encompass the
agency, but also count on the participation of the Board of Economic
Defense (CADE, which deals with competition issues), the National
Consumer Office at the Ministry of Justice (SENACON) and Internet
Steering Committee in Brazil, CGI.br. The argument was that the legal
and administrative powers of ANATEL would not be enough to give out
the function of monitoring the neutrality from the point of view of
collective rights.

The draft of the Ministry of Justice rejected this suggestion and left
the enforcement under the responsibility of ANATEL, but guarded to
CGI.br the function of giving enforcement guidelines, especially
because the Committee have been cited in the Marco Civil as a
necessary participant in this process. The draft decree’Article 7,
section I, also establ compliance with the rules of ANATEL as a
requirement for discrimination due to the prioritization of emergency
services.

At the same time, Articles 16 and 17 of draft decree make clear the
space for performance of SENACON and CADE, within their respective
scopes of activity. However the role of these bodies is not clear
regarding net neutrality enforcement.



Zero rating plans

Despite the technical complexity of the subject, zero rating plans
caused controversy in the first phase: the subject was the most
discussed by the participants. One factor is the potential influence
of this type of plan in the competitive context, the development of
Internet-related businesses and in the very way the network works and
is managed. This topic has divided opinions.

The debate revolved around two strategies to regulate free access to
applications. One option, suggested by groups linked to
telecommunications companies, pointed to a subsequent assessment of
each type of plan, i.e., damage to competition and the consumer would
be further processed by CADE or the judiciary. The argument would be
that the regulation should not restrict the economic freedom of the
companies to offer plans to its customers in the commercial context.
According to these participants, differentiation does not happen
within the data packet traffic, but in the commercial sphere.

The second position, supported by academic and civil society
organizations, argued that this type of plan should be prohibited by
the decree, since it is a violation of network neutrality. These
participants argued that plans like these needed to be addressed
immediately and a priori because they were already being offered in
the market and a breach for a future disfigure of the Marco Civil’
network neutrality rule.

Despite the intense debate, the decree does not specifically address
zero rating plans. If the draft is approved, the final decision
regarding whether or not the practice is prohibited will be taken by
the Judiciary or by the CADE board (in case of questions about
anti-competitive conduct).

It can be argued that the draft decree text, by better defining the
hypothesis of exception to network neutrality (Articles 5 and 7) and
by referring to the preservation the unique and public internet
(single paragraph, Article 4 and Article 8), points to the beforehand
prohibition of zero rating plans. In this same line, by the way, it
highlights the emphasis given in Article 5 of the decree to article 9,
item IV  of the Marco Civil, which deals with the prohibition of
discriminatory and anti-competitive business practices.

Article 8 of the decree, however, which concerns agreements between
connection and application providers, only prohibits agreements
entailing the discriminatory prioritization of data packets. In this
sense, there could be room for the argument – already presented in the
first phase of the consultation – that the ban would be only regarding
discrimination related to data traffic, and not discrimination of the
package price. Thus, for the defenders of this position, zero rating
plans would not, in principle, violate the network neutrality rule.

By Francisco Brito Cruz and Jonas Coelho Marchezan

--

Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini


-- 

Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Thu Feb  4 17:01:31 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 00:01:31 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
 recommendations
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7acwFdb+6NKsn8DNs8wm0CK3UE42Nowz2jLmy2a8zOQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJdpWNDtVkbWFiGLEwgDhqeKWsS9C2ySr4vfpK0yO3HVyWfPrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7acwFdb+6NKsn8DNs8wm0CK3UE42Nowz2jLmy2a8zOQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNAbtEwZ1k2Xh+_biybh+sY7xPONQYoOxKc53PQ+gQKqtQ@mail.gmail.com>

I join you De for wishing the nominee the best to follow,
Nadira

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Congratulations Julian, Renata, Norbert and Rasha and best wishes for the
> future.
> Deirdre
>
> On 1 February 2016 at 05:15, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Best Bits members,
>>
>> I'm pleased to pass to you below the nominations and recommendations of
>> the CSCG nominating committee with regards to the civil society
>> representation on MAG 2016.
>>
>> The CSCG Nomcom is co-chaired by Ginger (Virginia) Paque and Ian Peter,
>> and the team composed of
>> ​Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits),
>> Analia Aspis (Internet Governance Caucus),
>> Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
>> Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), and
>> Parminder Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition).
>>
>> Hoping the CSCG nomcom recommendations would be considered for the
>> enhancement of selection for the civil society representations on MAG.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Nadira Alaraj
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Date: Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:14 AM
>> Subject: [cs-coord] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
>> recommendations
>> To: CSCG NomCom for 2016 MAG appointments <nomcom05 at internetgov-cs.org>,
>> cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org
>>
>>
>> (text below is also attached in document form)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Chengetai, IGF Secretariat, and MAG selection committee(s),
>>
>>
>>
>> First, we wish to thank you for your past co-operation with us in aiming
>> to ensure the best possible representation for civil society in the IGF
>> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). We were pleased that you were able
>> to accept all but one of our suggested nominations last year, and also our
>> suggestions for speakers at IGF. We look forward to further strengthening
>> this collaboration, in line with various recommendations calling for
>> greater legitimacy, transparency and stakeholder involvement in such
>> processes
>>
>>
>>
>> The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a
>> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making
>> civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives
>> of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive
>> Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and the
>> Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these
>> groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well
>> as a great number of individuals. In addition, the CSCG receives
>> recommendations of non-affiliated individuals and groups who chose to voice
>> their endorsements through the CSCG mechanism. The CSCG represents the five
>> largest groupings of civil society organisations addressing Internet
>> governance issues. We also work in collaboration with other initiatives in
>> the UN, but also outside of it (such as the Netmundial Conference in Brazil
>> in 2014 and the subsequent Netmundial Initiative).
>>
>>
>>
>> We are pleased to forward the following civil society endorsements for
>> candidates for the 2016 MAG renewal.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Nomcom considered 16 names submitted via our networks, which are
>> attached as Appendix 1. For the record, we also asked to be privy to any
>> other civil society nominations forwarded to you from other sources, and,
>> for full transparency, all civil society stakeholder group applications,
>> which we ideally should have considered fully and without discrimination,
>> but we were told this was not possible.  However if there are other names
>> you are considering, we offer our services to give you confidential
>> assessment of any such candidates.
>>
>>
>>
>> In completing our task, we note that three candidates designated by you
>> as civil society representatives have terms ending this year; two from LAC
>> region and one from Asia. (Fatima Cambronero, Desiree Zachariah, and Subi
>> Chaturvedi)
>>
>>
>>
>> In considering replacements, we have looked at a number of
>> considerations, the most important of which at this particular time, are:
>>
>>
>>
>> First, to restore the balance of LAC region representation, to replace
>> retiring civil society members, we recommend:
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. *Julian Casasbuenas*. Julian is a member of the Association for
>>    Progressive Communications (APC), and has been attending IGF since 2006.
>>    He was involved in the organization of LAC regional IGF meetings and
>>    participated actively as a reporter and speaker in these events. In 2012
>>    his organization, Colnodo, was co-organizer with .CO Internet of the Fifth
>>    IGF LAC meeting that was held in Bogotá Colombia.
>>
>>    2. *Renata Aquino Ribeiro*. Renata is currently a professor in the IT
>>    Campus at Quixadá City in Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. In 2014, she
>>    was a researcher in social development, technology and education at
>>    Business and Economics Faculty (FEAAC) at Federal University of Ceará
>>    (UFC). For the last decade, she has followed the Internet governance
>>    debates such as regional IGFs and ICANN53 participation as a fellow,
>>    Brazilian Internet School of Governance 2014 fellow, South School of
>>    Internet Governance 2015 fellow, LACRALO ALS Nexti participant, and NCUC
>>    participant in ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our second and third major considerations are to increase voices speaking
>> for the geo-political global south, and to add to the level of experience
>> in internet governance matters of civil society participation. We believe
>> this can be done with one specific candidate. i.e.:
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. *Norbert Bollow*. Norbert has a background in mathematics, physics
>> and IT, and he also has many years of experience in civil society activism
>> on a wide range of information society topics including advocacy for human
>> rights and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). He has participated in the
>> consultations that preceded the first IGF and he has since then
>> participated in many IGFs, including several times as a workshop organizer.
>> He has been a co-coordinator of Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
>> Norbert is currently a co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition
>> http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-members, an international civil society
>> coalition of 35 organisations and networks, most of them South based, with
>> a focus on demands that the Internet must advance human rights and social
>> justice, and that Internet governance must be truly democratic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our fourth consideration is to gain representation from the MENA region,
>> which currently has no civil society representation; and at the same time
>> to strengthen our African presence. To this end we endorse:
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. *Rasha Abdulla*.  Dr. Rasha A. Abdulla is Associate Professor
>> (tenured) and Past Chair of Journalism and Mass Communication at the
>> American University in Cairo. She has a Ph.D. in Communication (December
>> 2003) from the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. She is the
>> proud recipient of several teaching and research awards. Her current
>> research interests focus on the Internet as a medium. Her doctoral
>> dissertation was the first large scale academic study of the uses and
>> gratifications of the Internet among Arab students in Egypt...
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your consideration of these candidates. Please note that,
>> in addition to addressing matters of geographical and gender balance, civil
>> society, like other stakeholders, needs to consider geopolitical balance
>> and the need to ensure that all stakeholder voices are represented. What
>> might appear to be simple changes to the representation we suggest can be
>> quite problematic for us, and result in either imbalance in representation
>> or in inappropriate candidates being selected. To avoid these problems
>> which have occurred in the past, we do suggest that, should you be looking
>> at appointing anyone as a civil society representative not on our list of
>> endorsements, you discuss this in confidence with our coordinators. In
>> addition to any names you might have received individually, we recognise
>> that there are a number of excellent candidates from distinct geographic
>> regions who applied to be nominated through CSCG who we were unable to
>> include in our limited number of endorsements above, that might come into
>> consideration in such discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the investment in the important process of (perceived) legitimacy,
>> balance, transparency and consensus, we feel strongly that selections
>> should be done with our collaboration. This enhanced co-operation and
>> consultation can assist to ensure the best possible civil society
>> representation, a goal we all share. This also addresses the recommendation
>> of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by UN
>> General Assembly, seeking ‘self-management’ of stakeholder representative
>> process by respective stakeholder groups.  We are open for further
>> discussion on this point and other relevant recommendations of the
>> mentioned Working Group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, we do think that, in the light of recommendations in the
>> mentioned CSTD WG and in Netmundial, calling for greater legitimacy,
>> transparency and stakeholder involvement in such processes, it would be
>> appropriate in coming months to review the IGF MAG selection processes, to
>> align them more with emerging best practice in ensuring stakeholder
>> representation and also overall transparency. We offer our services to work
>> with you and other stakeholder representative organisations towards this
>> objective, which we consider imperative to have in place for the 2017 MAG
>> selection process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ​​
>> Virginia Paque and Ian Peter
>>
>> Non-voting Co Chairs CSCG
>>
>>
>>
>> *Nomcom members:* Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits), Analia Aspis (Internet
>> Governance Caucus), Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
>> Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), Parminder
>> Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition)
>>
>> *The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and
>> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside
>> bodies. Our procedures can be viewed at
>> http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures
>> <http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *APPENDIX ONE*
>>
>> *CANDIDATES EVALUATED BY CSCG NOMCOM *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Julian Casasbuenas (LAC)**
>>
>> *Renata Aquino Ribeiro (LAC)**
>>
>> *Norbert Bollow (WEOG*)*
>>
>> *Rasha Abdulla (Africa)**
>>
>> Renata Avila (LAC)
>>
>> Wisdom Kwasi Donkor (Africa)
>>
>> Isaque Manteiga Joaquim (Africa)
>>
>> Olevie Kouami (Africa)
>>
>> Glenn McKnight (WEOG)
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm (WEOG)
>>
>> Joseph Marc Antoine Ridore (Africa)
>>
>> Grigori Saghyan (WEOG)
>>
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Asia-Pacific)
>>
>> AbdulRasheed Tamton (Africa)
>>
>> Arsene Tungali (Africa)
>>
>> Deidre Williams (LAC)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CS-coord mailing list
>> CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org
>> http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>



--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160205/6cb38f5c/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Thu Feb  4 17:04:15 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 00:04:15 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
 recommendations
In-Reply-To: <CAAU+vPGs-TRtp3hiUhTcNmnSP31vS=vk=B6Jwjcne6cex+Q+rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJdpWNDtVkbWFiGLEwgDhqeKWsS9C2ySr4vfpK0yO3HVyWfPrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAU+vPGs-TRtp3hiUhTcNmnSP31vS=vk=B6Jwjcne6cex+Q+rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNC7O=A09aDA4NSgxaSVTGAmRnLo6uRs=vbiXuwpXy4ToQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Wisdom, Arsène and Renata,
Wishing you all success in your endeavors.
*Nadira*

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Congratulations and good luck to us all short listed.
>
>
> On Monday, February 1, 2016, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Best Bits members,
> >
> > I'm pleased to pass to you below the nominations and recommendations of
> the CSCG nominating committee with regards to the civil society
> representation on MAG 2016.
> >
> > The CSCG Nomcom is co-chaired by Ginger (Virginia) Paque and Ian Peter,
> > and the team composed of
> > Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits),
> > Analia Aspis (Internet Governance Caucus),
> > Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
> > Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), and
> > Parminder Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition).
> >
> > Hoping the CSCG nomcom recommendations would be considered for the
> enhancement of selection for the civil society representations on MAG.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nadira Alaraj
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> > Date: Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:14 AM
> > Subject: [cs-coord] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
> recommendations
> > To: CSCG NomCom for 2016 MAG appointments <nomcom05 at internetgov-cs.org>,
> cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org
> >
> >
> > (text below is also attached in document form)
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Chengetai, IGF Secretariat, and MAG selection committee(s),
> >
> >
> >
> > First, we wish to thank you for your past co-operation with us in aiming
> to ensure the best possible representation for civil society in the IGF
> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). We were pleased that you were able
> to accept all but one of our suggested nominations last year, and also our
> suggestions for speakers at IGF. We look forward to further strengthening
> this collaboration, in line with various recommendations calling for
> greater legitimacy, transparency and stakeholder involvement in such
> processes
> >
> >
> >
> > The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a
> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making
> civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives
> of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive
> Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and the
> Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these
> groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well
> as a great number of individuals. In addition, the CSCG receives
> recommendations of non-affiliated individuals and groups who chose to voice
> their endorsements through the CSCG mechanism. The CSCG represents the five
> largest groupings of civil society organisations addressing Internet
> governance issues. We also work in collaboration with other initiatives in
> the UN, but also outside of it (such as the Netmundial Conference in Brazil
> in 2014 and the subsequent Netmundial Initiative).
> >
> >
> >
> > We are pleased to forward the following civil society endorsements for
> candidates for the 2016 MAG renewal.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Nomcom considered 16 names submitted via our networks, which are
> attached as Appendix 1. For the record, we also asked to be privy to any
> other civil society nominations forwarded to you from other sources, and,
> for full transparency, all civil society stakeholder group applications,
> which we ideally should have considered fully and without discrimination,
> but we were told this was not possible.  However if there are other names
> you are considering, we offer our services to give you confidential
> assessment of any such candidates.
> >
> >
> >
> > In completing our task, we note that three candidates designated by you
> as civil society representatives have terms ending this year; two from LAC
> region and one from Asia. (Fatima Cambronero, Desiree Zachariah, and Subi
> Chaturvedi)
> >
> >
> >
> > In considering replacements, we have looked at a number of
> considerations, the most important of which at this particular time, are:
> >
> >
> >
> > First, to restore the balance of LAC region representation, to replace
> retiring civil society members, we recommend:
> >
> >
> >
> > Julian Casasbuenas. Julian is a member of the Association for
> Progressive Communications (APC), and has been attending IGF since 2006.
> He was involved in the organization of LAC regional IGF meetings and
> participated actively as a reporter and speaker in these events. In 2012
> his organization, Colnodo, was co-organizer with .CO Internet of the Fifth
> IGF LAC meeting that was held in Bogotá Colombia.
> >
> > Renata Aquino Ribeiro. Renata is currently a professor in the IT Campus
> at Quixadá City in Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. In 2014, she was a
> researcher in social development, technology and education at Business and
> Economics Faculty (FEAAC) at Federal University of Ceará (UFC). For the
> last decade, she has followed the Internet governance debates such as
> regional IGFs and ICANN53 participation as a fellow, Brazilian Internet
> School of Governance 2014 fellow, South School of Internet Governance 2015
> fellow, LACRALO ALS Nexti participant, and NCUC participant in ICANN.
> >
> >
> >
> > Our second and third major considerations are to increase voices
> speaking for the geo-political global south, and to add to the level of
> experience in internet governance matters of civil society participation.
> We believe this can be done with one specific candidate. i.e.:
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. Norbert Bollow. Norbert has a background in mathematics, physics and
> IT, and he also has many years of experience in civil society activism on a
> wide range of information society topics including advocacy for human
> rights and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). He has participated in the
> consultations that preceded the first IGF and he has since then
> participated in many IGFs, including several times as a workshop organizer.
> He has been a co-coordinator of Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
> Norbert is currently a co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition
> http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-members, an international civil society
> coalition of 35 organisations and networks, most of them South based, with
> a focus on demands that the Internet must advance human rights and social
> justice, and that Internet governance must be truly democratic.
> >
> >
> >
> > Our fourth consideration is to gain representation from the MENA region,
> which currently has no civil society representation; and at the same time
> to strengthen our African presence. To this end we endorse:
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. Rasha Abdulla.  Dr. Rasha A. Abdulla is Associate Professor (tenured)
> and Past Chair of Journalism and Mass Communication at the American
> University in Cairo. She has a Ph.D. in Communication (December 2003) from
> the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. She is the proud
> recipient of several teaching and research awards. Her current research
> interests focus on the Internet as a medium. Her doctoral dissertation was
> the first large scale academic study of the uses and gratifications of the
> Internet among Arab students in Egypt...
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration of these candidates. Please note that,
> in addition to addressing matters of geographical and gender balance, civil
> society, like other stakeholders, needs to consider geopolitical balance
> and the need to ensure that all stakeholder voices are represented. What
> might appear to be simple changes to the representation we suggest can be
> quite problematic for us, and result in either imbalance in representation
> or in inappropriate candidates being selected. To avoid these problems
> which have occurred in the past, we do suggest that, should you be looking
> at appointing anyone as a civil society representative not on our list of
> endorsements, you discuss this in confidence with our coordinators. In
> addition to any names you might have received individually, we recognise
> that there are a number of excellent candidates from distinct geographic
> regions who applied to be nominated through CSCG who we were unable to
> include in our limited number of endorsements above, that might come into
> consideration in such discussions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Given the investment in the important process of (perceived) legitimacy,
> balance, transparency and consensus, we feel strongly that selections
> should be done with our collaboration. This enhanced co-operation and
> consultation can assist to ensure the best possible civil society
> representation, a goal we all share. This also addresses the recommendation
> of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by UN
> General Assembly, seeking ‘self-management’ of stakeholder representative
> process by respective stakeholder groups.  We are open for further
> discussion on this point and other relevant recommendations of the
> mentioned Working Group.
> >
> >
> >
> > Finally, we do think that, in the light of recommendations in the
> mentioned CSTD WG and in Netmundial, calling for greater legitimacy,
> transparency and stakeholder involvement in such processes, it would be
> appropriate in coming months to review the IGF MAG selection processes, to
> align them more with emerging best practice in ensuring stakeholder
> representation and also overall transparency. We offer our services to work
> with you and other stakeholder representative organisations towards this
> objective, which we consider imperative to have in place for the 2017 MAG
> selection process.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Virginia Paque and Ian Peter
> >
> > Non-voting Co Chairs CSCG
> >
> >
> >
> > Nomcom members: Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits), Analia Aspis (Internet
> Governance Caucus), Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
> Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), Parminder
> Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition)
> >
> > The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and
> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside
> bodies. Our procedures can be viewed at
> http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > APPENDIX ONE
> >
> > CANDIDATES EVALUATED BY CSCG NOMCOM
> >
> >
> >
> > Julian Casasbuenas (LAC)*
> >
> > Renata Aquino Ribeiro (LAC)*
> >
> > Norbert Bollow (WEOG)*
> >
> > Rasha Abdulla (Africa)*
> >
> > Renata Avila (LAC)
> >
> > Wisdom Kwasi Donkor (Africa)
> >
> > Isaque Manteiga Joaquim (Africa)
> >
> > Olevie Kouami (Africa)
> >
> > Glenn McKnight (WEOG)
> >
> > Jeremy Malcolm (WEOG)
> >
> > Joseph Marc Antoine Ridore (Africa)
> >
> > Grigori Saghyan (WEOG)
> >
> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Asia-Pacific)
> >
> > AbdulRasheed Tamton (Africa)
> >
> > Arsene Tungali (Africa)
> >
> > Deidre Williams (LAC)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CS-coord mailing list
> > CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org
> > http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
> --
> WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
> ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member
> Web/OGPL Portal Specialist
> National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
> Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI)
> Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
> Tel; +233 20 812881
> Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
> wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
> wisdom.dk at gmail.com
> Skype: wisdom_dk
> facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
> Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
> www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
>
>
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160205/9b69c303/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  4 18:53:02 2016
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:53:02 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: EnterpriseLibre - can u help?
In-Reply-To: <1454615600.16552.428.camel@chaos.a1107.virtualorgs.net>
References: <1454615600.16552.428.camel@chaos.a1107.virtualorgs.net>
Message-ID: <CADFgh119w0rrHsBVcOitzC9MHqBNA1GQDeq8BVBmKCvOQJbkfA@mail.gmail.com>

FYI


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill Stewart <wstewart at cirruscomputing.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM
Subject: EnterpriseLibre - can u help?
To: Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>



Hi Nnenna, at Richard Stallman's request (the free software prophet :-)
Cirrus Open has been renamed to "EnterpriseLibre".  It replaces all
proprietary software, and helps organizations without any technical
support, or IT other than an Internet connection, use any free software
anywhere.  We need help getting it known to organizations that could use
it, and those that could host and sell it themselves.  Any help you can
provide would be greatly appreciated.

Three pics attached explain the innovation:

   1.  The first is the solution itself.  All the software anyone needs to
run an organization.  What makes it hostable is the virtual desktop
component.  That makes a solution, better than most onsite, available to
anyone in the world, on any kind of computer.

   2.  The second innovation is the point-and-click manager, described in
the second pic.  Up to now, even for the best onsite solution, there has
not been a way to add a new user with one click, and have all configuration
including virtual desktops, email, and applications setup automatically.
Now anyone can manage an entire enterprise from a GUI.

   3.  The third innovation is captured in the third pic: software that
automates build of new enterprises.  This means you can create as many as
you want with a click.  The computers do all the work.

This is the only open source competitor to Microsoft 365 and Google.  It
can really help organizations, and help make free software mainstream.  I
know you are very busy.  Can you spare a bit of time to help spread the
word?

Please don't hesitate to let me know any questions at all.  More info here:
https://wiki.enterpriselibre.org/images/b/ba/EnterpriseLibre-System-Description.pdf

Best regards,
Bill

-- 
William (Bill) Stewart, Ph.D.
CEO Cirrus Computing
https://www.linkedin.com/in/billstewart
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160204/4d433eb3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EnterpriseLibre-architecture.png
Type: image/png
Size: 111464 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160204/4d433eb3/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EnterpriseLibre-manager-architecture.png
Type: image/png
Size: 87775 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160204/4d433eb3/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EnterpriseLibre-system-architecture.png
Type: image/png
Size: 129957 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160204/4d433eb3/attachment-0002.png>

From puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in  Fri Feb  5 01:49:48 2016
From: puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in (Puneeth Nagaraj)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:19:48 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Survey of Civil Society Participation During the WSIS+10
 Review
Message-ID: <CAGpHsu_4F_rmKtvHSd0vy2mbBNRTRtxbNR7gvj51F2o7pOfP5g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

*[apologies in case of cross-posting]*

The Centre for Communication Governance and Global Partners Digital are
producing a report analysing civil society engagement with the WSIS Review
process. We hope to identify strategies that were successful and lessons we
could learn for the future through this report.

A significant portion of this report will be informed by the views of civil
society representatives who were involved in the process. To this end, we
have prepared a short questionnaire that will help frame our study.

As participants in the civil society effort at the WSIS, we request you to
kindly participate in the survey (link below) by *10th February, 2016*.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eO3Tl0Upme5B2g2WRHlNlRlhyQy9_TLk19dKCMeYXuI/viewform

If you have any questions/concerns please get in touch with me at
puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in

Many thanks,

Puneeth
-- 
Puneeth Nagaraj | Senior Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi
| Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 956-091-4899 | Fax:
(+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org .  <http://goog_561379142/>
www.nludelhi.ac.in |  <https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160205/6635c642/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Fri Feb  5 06:38:07 2016
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:38:07 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com> <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder - sorry for the delay in getting back to you -

Admittedly, I don't have a very robust understanding of what's been going
on in the OECD space, so I could be missing some crucial piece of the
puzzle and appreciate the context you provided. But my comment is broader
anyway. I disagree that you have to deploy a governance agenda in every
advocacy effort you are a part of (which is how I understand what you're
saying). If one thinks that making a short term gain on, say,
cybersecurity, will be undermined by pushing a governance argument at that
point, they may decide not to bring it up. I don't think this is
contradictory at all, just shows that people have different priorities and
strategies.

I can see how if you take governance as the underlying problem, you could
argue that any policy-specific efforts that ignore governance issues will
in the end be unsustainable. But A) some may disagree that governance is
the underlying problem, and B) even it it was, it doesn't follow that all
efforts that don't put it at the forefront of their agendas are at odds
with it. Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.

Best wishes,
Lea

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:59, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:

Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a non sequitur.
Why would interest to engage in a process like the OECD have to imply a
normative endorsement of the status quo? Working with the system that we've
currently got can go hand in hand with efforts to make the system as a
whole better. Not to mention the value of damage control.


Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the engaged civil
society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial that the model of Internet
policy making that they employ is really a inter-governmental (pluri or
multi lateral) one and not multistakeholder one, and as such not really
acceptable to civil society, even though we may be working with you per
force. And also ask these governments how they brazenly run such a
inter-gov policy system when they criticise any similar effort by UN as
being distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and say pious things like
that Internet is just not the kind of thing to be governed in an inter-gov
manner. Are we ready to make such a statement at the Ministrial, while, ok,
accepting your logic, not stopping to engage with OECD's policy processes,
in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?

All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011 when they
shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism proposal which was
deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's model as being inter-gov and
multilateral, and thus unthinkably bad, representing the worst things that
any human mind could ever come up with...

In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on Digital Economy
was formed, morphed from the earlier committee on computers, communication
and information policy -- this happened much after the civil society's
raucous denouncement of India's UN proposal.... Did, at that point when
this committee was being formed, civil society tell OECD  that Internet
cannot be governed in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming this
new committee thy should make it genuinely multistakeholder.... No, no one
spoke a word.... I am ready to be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one
word was said, much less a statement made.  it was not that civil society
asked for it, and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you are
saying... They never uttered a single word.... Such is its pusillanimity in
front of the powerful, while the real job of civil society is to challenge
the most powerful.

And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in the civil
society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd voice recently spoke
about whether OECD's process is multistakeholder enough, the general
consensus was, leave that aside, lets focus on substantive issues!!

When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage, suddenly no one
can even think of any important enough non ICANN-y Internet-related public
policy issues at all - we have spent years wondering whether any or enough
of such  issues even exist. It is a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we
are at the OECD, and such policy issues roll out like no ones business -
work in the Internet age, sharing economy, economics of data, algorithmic
economy, policy implications of internet of things, big data and social
profiling ........... The list is unending. Civil society itself actively
keeps suggesting new policy areas and engaging with them.

People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums like this,
that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet or digital policies
related body, and all such areas can very well be dealt by policy bodies
looking at respective impacted domains (work, education, governance, etc)
... But no one tells OECD's Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is
superfluous when OECD has about 50 other committees dealing with every
possible area, where, by  that logic , specific issues of Internet impact
could have been adequately dealt with.

Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?

parminder



Warm wishes,
Lea

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>
> Grande Parm,
>
> "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>
>
> Dear Carlos,
>
> Nice to hear from you!
>
> I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil society
> section that engages with OECD's Internet policy processes is really a
> pretty big part of the civil society groups dominant in the global IG
> space. So, my question may be taken just as being addressed to this quite
> big civil society section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory stand
> when they are at the OECD (the club of the rich countries) vis a vis when
> they are at the UN (a grouping of all countries) .
>
> best regards, parminder
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>
> Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>
> As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
> the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
> become my pet question...
>
> Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
> all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
> stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
> OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>
> I cant make it simpler.
>
> Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
> Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
> on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>
> parminder
>
> On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
> is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
> Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>
> We've also included information on how to participate. The most
> important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
> coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
> OECD.
>
> Best, Carol
>
>
> ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Developmenthttps://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>
> ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Developmenthttps://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>
> ·      OECD Ministerial Meetingshttps://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160205/d7ed708b/attachment.htm>

From yannis at registry.asia  Mon Feb  1 05:37:56 2016
From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:37:56 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] (Deadline TOMORROW) APrIGF Taipei 2016 - Open Call for
 Workshop Proposals
In-Reply-To: <731A9A6A-EB3A-48AF-A2F8-0B18C7ED3B6D@registry.asia>
References: <9A093A1C-ED51-4F25-AF20-3958255AED5A@registry.asia> <731A9A6A-EB3A-48AF-A2F8-0B18C7ED3B6D@registry.asia>
Message-ID: <B77EE76A-62DA-4917-92EF-52687EBCDD62@registry.asia>

Hi Everyone, 

Just want to bring this up again since tomorrow is the last day to submit your workshop proposal.

Best Regards,
Yannis



Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
APrIGF Taipei 2016
27 Jul - 29 Jul 2016
NTUH International Convention Center
http://2016.aprigf.asia <http://2016.aprigf.asia/>

Open Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) is one of the key regional initiatives on Internet governance which provides an open platform for multi-stakeholders to discuss and identify issues and priorities, and ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia Pacific region as well as bring forward and contribute to the wider global Internet community.  

Hosted by the National Information Infrastructure Enterprise Promotion Association (NIIEPA), the main conference will be held from 27 - 29 July 2016 at NTUH International Convention Center with pre-events on Day 0 (26 July) and a new 2-day Asia Pacific School of Internet Governance (APSIG) before the main conference. 

Our Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group(MSG) now would like to call upon the community to contribute to the program development process and suggest any pre-events or workshop proposals for 2016 with the overarching theme "A New Internet Era - Merging Physical Space with Cyberspace”. More details on the suggested sub-themes could be found at http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/themes/ <http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/themes/>.

Online Submission Form: http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/ <http://2016.aprigf.asia/program/>
Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 2 Feb 2016 (Tue), 24:00 UTC
**Read the online submission guide before you submit a proposal!

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.

If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription request.

We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please visit the 2016 website <http://2016.aprigf.asia/sponsorship/> or contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more information.

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.aprigf.asia/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160201/7d27bbe3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APrIGF2016_web_banner.png
Type: image/png
Size: 778913 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160201/7d27bbe3/attachment.png>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Feb  5 07:35:00 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 18:05:00 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56B496F4.8090205@itforchange.net>



On Friday 05 February 2016 05:08 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Hi Parminder - sorry for the delay in getting back to you -
>
> Admittedly, I don't have a very robust understanding of what's been
> going on in the OECD space, so I could be missing some crucial piece
> of the puzzle and appreciate the context you provided. But my comment
> is broader anyway. I disagree that you have to deploy a governance
> agenda in every advocacy effort you are a part of (which is how I
> understand what you're saying). If one thinks that making a short term
> gain on, say, cybersecurity, will be undermined by pushing a
> governance argument at that point, they may decide not to bring it up.
> I don't think this is contradictory at all, just shows that people
> have different priorities and strategies.

Thanks Lea

Please see my last email. It begins with "yes, Lea, that can be.." and
then it asks for a different thing, "But does there exist any plan of
the engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial that
the model of Internet policy making that they employ is really a
inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not multistakeholder
one, and as such not really acceptable to civil society, even though we
may be working with you per force. "

This response would go for your current email as well. I can agree to
your point, but where is the answer to my question - by you, or any
other, since very big chunk of civil society - most major CS groups here
- are engaged with the OECD process ... Since I get no response, I take
it that the CS groups so engaged have no such plan.

Now, I repeat, my problem is not with dealing with specific issues at
times without necessarily always commenting on the larger governance
framework. All of us, including my group and networks, often do that. We
are very heavily focussed on specific policy issues, at least as much as
any other global CS group, both at global and national levels.

But I am sure you can see that I am specifically pointing on the lack of
symmetry between the attitude of these CS groups to UN processes and
OECD processes.

Just till two months back, all these groups, including yours, were at
the UN, with respect to WSIS + 10 review... But why there, no 'such
concession' was given to let the governance model be, and focus on
substantive Internet policy issues, more and more of which are becoming
increasingly urgent to resolve. The very same issues at OECD become
important to engage with, but at WSIS we seem to suddenly be at a loss
to even agree that there are important Internet related policy issues
that need urgent focussed attention (the drama that unfolded with regard
to the CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation on this account, for instance)..
Why at the UN, the governance model becomes more important, but at OCED,
we want to focus on substantive issues ? Why when CS contributions to
the UN processes are so heavily loaded with comments and inputs on
'governance model' issue, we are hesitant to mention this aspect at the
OECD? When in fact it is so easy to do it by pointing to the hypocrisy
of OECD nations who speaking with a double tongue depending on whether
at the UN or the OCED. Why do we let go this excellent opportunity?

As for opportunities to do so, the forthcoming OECD ministerial on
Internet policy issues is exactly the right kind. It is the first
ministerial after the renamed and re-mandated, new Committee on Digital
Economy Policy... Although as I mentioned in my email to Tamir, and
referenced documents, it is only over 213-14 that the mandate was
changed, and proposals invited to suggest inputs on working methods -
and I understand none were given by this civil society (why did they not
ask it to become 'fully stakeholder' as they ask UN to) . Interesting,
in changing the mandate, language got added that this committee makes
policies 'through multistakeholder processes', and this happened in
2013-14, in open view of the CS, after proposals for inputs into mandate
framing were invited.... Why did the civil society groups use this
excellent opportunity to give their version of 'what multistakeholder
processes are' and insist on instituting such processes, or not use the
term in the mandate?

I think there are significant questions that the involved civil society
cannot escape from answering, as they have been. And I  dont think an
excuse of focussing on issues rather than governance really works here.
>
> I can see how if you take governance as the underlying problem,

No, I equally deal both with governance methods and framework, and
specific issues. Even just one or the other, at times, as required and
opportune. But that still keeps my above questions fully valid, and
IMHO, necessary to answer for the OECD engaged civil society.

> you could argue that any policy-specific efforts that ignore
> governance issues will in the end be unsustainable. But A) some may
> disagree that governance is the underlying problem,

Maybe .. I know some groups you are so focussed on specific issues and
problems that they may be impatient about tackling governance issues,
which may even be fine... What I cant understand is how for the 'same
groups' , governance becomes the 'key' and prior issue when they are at
the UN, even at the expense of urgent specific policy issues, but the
orientation gets exactly reversed when at that club of rich,
resourceful, countries, the OECD... That still remains a question to
answer.

> and B) even it it was, it doesn't follow that all efforts that don't
> put it at the forefront of their agendas are at odds with it. Hope
> this clarifies the point I was trying to make.

You said that my 'assumption of contradiction seem like a non
sequitur'... Now that I have again explained what is the contradiction
that I am focussing on -  not necessarily between working on specific
policy issues versus engaging with governance framework questions, but
flipping one's orientation between being at the UN and OECD - I hope you
do not still consider it a non sequitur, and even may have another
response to it.

thanks, parminder
>
> Best wishes,
> Lea
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:59, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a non
>>> sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like the OECD
>>> have to imply a normative endorsement of the status quo? Working
>>> with the system that we've currently got can go hand in hand with
>>> efforts to make the system as a whole better. Not to mention the
>>> value of damage control.
>>
>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the engaged
>> civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial that the model
>> of Internet policy making that they employ is really a
>> inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
>> multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
>> society, even though we may be working with you per force. And also
>> ask these governments how they brazenly run such a inter-gov policy
>> system when they criticise any similar effort by UN as being
>> distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and say pious things like
>> that Internet is just not the kind of thing to be governed in an
>> inter-gov manner. Are we ready to make such a statement at the
>> Ministrial, while, ok, accepting your logic, not stopping to engage
>> with OECD's policy processes, in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?
>>
>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011 when
>> they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism proposal which
>> was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's model as being
>> inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably bad, representing
>> the worst things that any human mind could ever come up with...
>>
>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on Digital
>> Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee on computers,
>> communication and information policy -- this happened much after the
>> civil society's raucous denouncement of India's UN proposal.... Did,
>> at that point when this committee was being formed, civil society
>> tell OECD  that Internet cannot be governed in an inter gov manner,
>> and when they are forming this new committee thy should make it
>> genuinely multistakeholder.... No, no one spoke a word.... I am ready
>> to be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one word was said, much
>> less a statement made.  it was not that civil society asked for it,
>> and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you are saying...
>> They never uttered a single word.... Such is its pusillanimity in
>> front of the powerful, while the real job of civil society is to
>> challenge the most powerful.
>>
>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in the
>> civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd voice
>> recently spoke about whether OECD's process is multistakeholder
>> enough, the general consensus was, leave that aside, lets focus on
>> substantive issues!!
>>
>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage, suddenly
>> no one can even think of any important enough non ICANN-y
>> Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have spent years
>> wondering whether any or enough of such  issues even exist. It is a
>> real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the OECD, and such
>> policy issues roll out like no ones business - work in the Internet
>> age, sharing economy, economics of data, algorithmic economy, policy
>> implications of internet of things, big data and social profiling
>> ........... The list is unending. Civil society itself actively keeps
>> suggesting new policy areas and engaging with them.
>>
>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums like
>> this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet or
>> digital policies related body, and all such areas can very well be
>> dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted domains (work,
>> education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells OECD's Digital
>> Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous when OECD has about
>> 50 other committees dealing with every possible area, where, by  that
>> logic , specific issues of Internet impact could have been adequately
>> dealt with.
>>
>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Warm wishes,
>>> Lea
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>     Grande Parm,
>>>>
>>>>     "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>
>>>     Dear Carlos,
>>>
>>>     Nice to hear from you!
>>>
>>>     I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil
>>>     society section that engages with OECD's Internet policy
>>>     processes is really a pretty big part of the civil society
>>>     groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my question may be
>>>     taken just as being addressed to this quite big civil society
>>>     section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory stand when
>>>     they are at the OECD (the club of the rich countries) vis a vis
>>>     when they are at the UN (a grouping of all countries) .
>>>
>>>     best regards, parminder
>>>
>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>
>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>
>>>>     On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>     Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>
>>>>>     As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>     the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>     become my pet question...
>>>>>
>>>>>     Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>     all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>     stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>     OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>
>>>>>     I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>     Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>     on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>
>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>     Hi all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>     is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>     Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>     important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>     coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>     OECD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Best, Carol
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160205/d309f6c5/attachment.htm>

From tisrael at cippic.ca  Sat Feb  6 19:10:50 2016
From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel)
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 19:10:50 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net> <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net> <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com> <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca> <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca>

Dear Parminder,

I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your detailed
answer.

I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD
policy-making process and particularly on how it manages
multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary
impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way to
improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often raised on
a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements over time, at
least in my opinion).

I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents or
activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my recollection the
opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements of the proposal that
/did/ envision this type of binding action, which is far different from
what the OECD does.

Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented in the UN:

  * Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and
    operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards
    setting;
  * Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on
    Internet-related public policies;
  * Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;

All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some branches
of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but this is
neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been something the
committee has done historically in the context of Internet policy. By
contrast, facilitating treaties was a key listed objective for the CIRP.
Likewise, arbitration and dispute resolution is not only an
operationally binding activity, but is typically only employed where
there are hard underlying legal obligations (ie treaties) between states
that can lead to disputes requiring adjudication.

Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN, but
all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning
of the Internet". This would include, for example, the IETF and other
technical standards bodies alongside ICANN.

The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably closer to
multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that the civil society
stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any reports or policy
instruments it generates. As these instruments are not really binding
anyways, that form of dissent can be relatively meaningful because it
undermines the legitimacy of the policy instrument and legitimacy is
really the only currency it has. As a venue I, at least, have found it
worthwhile engaging in, even though as with all policy processes it's
had its ups and downs. Still, it's not ideal and wholly unsuited to
generating binding policy as opposed to just generating policy. It is
nowhere near robust enough for generating treaties or overseeing all the
technical communities and ICANN.

Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing like
this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later stage
(perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command and control
elements seemed as integral if not primary functions. Most, if not all
of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal related to this particular
aspect of the proposal, which is the fact that it would bring about
multi-lateral control as opposed to simply creating yet one more
policy-making venue.

Best,
Tamir


On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:
> Dear Tamir
>
> A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with this
> important issue.
> Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied...
>
> On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>> Dear Parminder,
>>
>> If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state
>> Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the
>> proposal did /not/ follow the OECD model.
>
> I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP proposal ,
> and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for Change gave a
> submission
> <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf>
> to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did a
> background paper
> <http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011> for IBSA
> meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public documents), which sought a
> UN Body on Internet policies taking from the OECD model. This OECD
> model was specifically discussed in both these papers. The mandate of
> CIRP
> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>
> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including the Committee
> on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point to be discussed
> later). The stakeholder consultation process of CIRP was exactly taken
> from the OECD model, plus a very important additional element that
> "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP" (OECD having no such system and
> thus being deficient to that extent in its multistakeholder content)
>
> See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy here
> <http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=>,
> and that of its predecessor CICCP here
> <http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=>
> . These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop policy
> frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members. Policy
> development is the central objective of OECD, and this is written
> upfront on its Internet economy page
> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/> 'The OECD focuses on the
> development of better policies..."
>
> When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like they
> exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on, the
> respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty development
> process.
>
> UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to basically be
> doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading of the proposal,
> with the same multistakeholder model, only reinforcement through
> formation of an organic linkage with the IGF and inviting its inputs.
> So, I will like to ask you, how has India's CIRP proposal become a
> multilateral, inter-state, IG body, while OECD's CDEP is a
> multistakeholder, harmless body? That was my original question.
>
> Now, if you want to  focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on just
> one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets discuss it.
>
> Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we suggested
> just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN oversight for
> this body.... But I can see that when India was making a proposal to
> the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the most contested global IG
> issue, of the US's unilateral oversight over ICANN, and the express
> mandate of the WSIS that"all governments should have an equal role and
> responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring
> the stability, security and continuity of the Internet" (para 68),
> which directly speaks to equal oversight role over ICANN, if there has
> to be one. Now, India did not have time to make an elaborate separate
> proposal for oversight transition, and put that role under the
> proposed new Committee for Internet Related Policies. In doing so, it
> picked up the language from 2 Models of IG architecture put forward by
> the (multistakeholder) Working Group on IG
> <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> .
>
> Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in the UN clearly
> called
>
> "for the establishment of an open­ended working group under
> the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for
> CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of
> all
> Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek tofill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept
> of Enhanced Co­operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"
>
> So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have just said,
> remove the oversight role from this committee and the rest is ok...
> Within a few months, at the next CSTD meeting, India again said, tell
> us what issues you have with our proposal and lets discuss them. No
> response. Then in another few months, on its own, in its submission to
> the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India separated the issue and
> proposed mechanism for general Internet related public policy
> development (as OECD does) and the oversight role, on which they asked
> for a separate discussion and possible mechanism.
>
> But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as before, to Northern
> government and big business, but also to the tech community and most
> of the civil society... And this is the hypocrisy that I point to.
>>
>> The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a
>> multi-stakeholder context.
>
> This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic
> constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have linked to
> OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities of UN bodies,
> like UNESCO <http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco>, WHO
> <http://www.who.int/about/en/>, UNDP
> <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html>,
> and if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant mode
> of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies as listed)
> then maybe you can see this one
> <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> ....  Most
> of these do more or less exactly the same stuff as OECD committees
> do... How often have you seen hard law coming out of the UN . And then
> OECD also produces binding agreements... What and how is what OECD
> does 'soft' and what UN does 'hard'... There is no IMHO basis for your
> statement and claim.
>
> As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring to
> OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN CIRP be
> not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees
> multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP proposal,
> but if you havent it is again here
> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>,
> and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as OECD's
> CDEP.
>
> It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email
> denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and are
> calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for the
> hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder
> participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech community
> rep recently called the OECD process as "multistakeholderism at work"
> ( http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions ). Such
> adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder, are
> commonplace....  But the same people call a proposal form developing
> countries with the same stakeholder participation model as
> multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is extremely unfair.
> And a great example of hegemonic discourse at work, extremely
> efficiently.
>
>
>> On digital issues, civil society has direct input into that
>> policy-making process, and this has been the case since the Seoul
>> Ministerial in 2009 
>
> I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such
> inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But in any
> case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed for the UN
> CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups preceding the
> inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD.
>
>> (the recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy which you
>> refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed functionally with
>> respect to the nature or scope of digital issues undertaken or civil
>> society's role therein).
>
> I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but
> proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" (
> http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf
>   )  while changing its name in 2014.  What I want to know is whether
> any civil society group asked for change in this Committees
> stakeholder consultation processes to making it 'really
> multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not considered so
> (which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP proposal). I know that
> nothing like this happened. Why?
>
>>
>> The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports or,
>> at most, soft law instruments 
>
> As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language in
> such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply the
> hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and sustain.
>
>> -- nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful for
>> civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt to resolve
>> policy issues. We definitely do not have the final say on these
>> policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state parties.
>
> Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...
>
>
>> But the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, 
>
> If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of
> being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.
>
>> meaning they will keep working until views of all member states and
>> of the four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant: the
>> business community, the technical community, a trade union community
>> and on telecommunications and digital issues, civil society). To date
>> there has been only one single occasion where a policy document was
>> adopted by the OECD over the sustained objections of civil society.
>
> That was the single most important document produced by the committee
> "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others issues too I
> know, they listen but the inter gov committee finally decides. And I
> am sure that much has been written in OECD policy docs that does not
> pass full civil society muster.... You are over-blowing the
> camaraderie.  And if there  is indeed some kind of a 'temporary and
> limited congruence' of libertarian civil society and tech community
> with the Northern countries on Internet issues, that has a different
> basis, and is essentially temporary and limited. Such congruence often
> takes place between civil society and developing country views in most
> global social, economic and cultural polity issues. Lets not get into
> that discussion. 9But if you want to, I am happy to )..
>>
>> Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on anyone.
>> In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely unimplemented by
>> OECD member states. They tend to form more of a reference or
>> normative statement that is at most useful as one single input into
>> domestic policy-making processes (I note incidentally that I do a lot
>> of national policy development and that in my experience most OECD
>> policies tend to be more useful to civil society than to other
>> segments of society, for whatever that's worth).
>
> Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read in
> detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I referenced and
> others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have been reading about.
>>
>> My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the time
>> (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.
>
> I hope my above references corrects it.....
>> It was to be based on a command and control model. 
>
> It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20 percent had
> the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to Tunis Agenda
> references India needed to put somewhere in its proposal, (2) India
> was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in less than a year after the
> initial proposal, in its proposal to WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India
> split the proposal to separate the oversight mechanism issue...
> However, the attitude to, and name calling vis a vis, its proposal for
> a Un platform to develop Internet related policies, and similar
> proposals by groups like mine, did not move an inch... It was the same
> diabolical multilateral,, inter gov, proposal, out to control the
> Internet...
>
> This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country view,
> which does not behove the global civil society.
>
>> It envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the OECD,
>> directly implements its policies by its control of the root, etc),
>> but with governments at the helm as opposed to the stakeholder model. 
>
> Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper
> since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is
> outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN. And
> even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and mis-characterise
> proposals from developing country (given their under-capacity to
> defend them), it is easy to see that the wording on 'oversight' in the
> Indiam proposal came from the WGIG report, where the distinctions
> between oversight and actual ICANN operations was clearly made, over
> much diligent discussions in an entirely multi-stakeholder fashion.
>> Indeed, one element of the proposal would have been to place ICANN
>> (and perhaps some of the other technical communities) under the
>> control of the new UN governance body. This is very different from
>> the OECD soft policy-development process.
>
> Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been discussed
> in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by subsequent Indian
> proposals.
>
> I  am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further
> information or clarification that you might require.
>
> And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has become a
> deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )...
>
> Best regards
> parminder
>>
>> All the best (and happy 2016 !),
>> Tamir
>>
>> On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a non
>>>> sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like the OECD
>>>> have to imply a normative endorsement of the status quo? Working
>>>> with the system that we've currently got can go hand in hand with
>>>> efforts to make the system as a whole better. Not to mention the
>>>> value of damage control.
>>>
>>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the engaged
>>> civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial that the
>>> model of Internet policy making that they employ is really a
>>> inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
>>> multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
>>> society, even though we may be working with you per force. And also
>>> ask these governments how they brazenly run such a inter-gov policy
>>> system when they criticise any similar effort by UN as being
>>> distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and say pious things like
>>> that Internet is just not the kind of thing to be governed in an
>>> inter-gov manner. Are we ready to make such a statement at the
>>> Ministrial, while, ok, accepting your logic, not stopping to engage
>>> with OECD's policy processes, in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?
>>>
>>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011 when
>>> they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism proposal which
>>> was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's model as being
>>> inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably bad, representing
>>> the worst things that any human mind could ever come up with...
>>>
>>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on Digital
>>> Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee on computers,
>>> communication and information policy -- this happened much after the
>>> civil society's raucous denouncement of India's UN proposal.... Did,
>>> at that point when this committee was being formed, civil society
>>> tell OECD  that Internet cannot be governed in an inter gov manner,
>>> and when they are forming this new committee thy should make it
>>> genuinely multistakeholder.... No, no one spoke a word.... I am
>>> ready to be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one word was said,
>>> much less a statement made.  it was not that civil society asked for
>>> it, and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you are
>>> saying... They never uttered a single word.... Such is its
>>> pusillanimity in front of the powerful, while the real job of civil
>>> society is to challenge the most powerful.
>>>
>>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in the
>>> civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd voice
>>> recently spoke about whether OECD's process is multistakeholder
>>> enough, the general consensus was, leave that aside, lets focus on
>>> substantive issues!!
>>>
>>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage, suddenly
>>> no one can even think of any important enough non ICANN-y
>>> Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have spent years
>>> wondering whether any or enough of such  issues even exist. It is a
>>> real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the OECD, and such
>>> policy issues roll out like no ones business - work in the Internet
>>> age, sharing economy, economics of data, algorithmic economy, policy
>>> implications of internet of things, big data and social profiling
>>> ........... The list is unending. Civil society itself actively
>>> keeps suggesting new policy areas and engaging with them.
>>>
>>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums like
>>> this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet or
>>> digital policies related body, and all such areas can very well be
>>> dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted domains (work,
>>> education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells OECD's Digital
>>> Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous when OECD has about
>>> 50 other committees dealing with every possible area, where, by 
>>> that logic , specific issues of Internet impact could have been
>>> adequately dealt with.
>>>
>>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>> Lea
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>     Grande Parm,
>>>>>
>>>>>     "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>>     Dear Carlos,
>>>>
>>>>     Nice to hear from you!
>>>>
>>>>     I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil
>>>>     society section that engages with OECD's Internet policy
>>>>     processes is really a pretty big part of the civil society
>>>>     groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my question may be
>>>>     taken just as being addressed to this quite big civil society
>>>>     section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory stand when
>>>>     they are at the OECD (the club of the rich countries) vis a vis
>>>>     when they are at the UN (a grouping of all countries) .
>>>>
>>>>     best regards, parminder
>>>>
>>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>>
>>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>     Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>     the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>     become my pet question...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>     all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>     stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>     OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>     Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>     on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>     Hi all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>     is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>     Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>     important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>     coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>     OECD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Best, Carol
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160206/34a7b0d0/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/20160206/34a7b0d0/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb  7 04:57:25 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:27:25 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca>
 <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net> <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca>
Message-ID: <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net>

Dear Tamir

Thanks for your response, which is the most well argued and
comprehensive one that I have ever received for this question that I
have asked several times in the last many years. So thanks again.

There is another important aspect of your email that I would like to
respond to but let me first do so for

    "Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing
    like this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the
    CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a
    later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command
    and control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions.
    Most, if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal
    related to this particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact
    that it would bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply
    creating yet one more policy-making venue."

I will come to IT for Change part the last bec it is the least important
thing here.

The "command and control" aspect of CIRP that you point to chiefly is
about the ICANN oversight part (the treaty facilitating aspect being
common to OECD and CoE committees and thus is symmetric ). Please note
that the CIRP proposal clearly says that it has picked CIRP's mandate
items from the institutional models suggested by the Working Group on
IG's report. This report clearly says that the oversight role is the
role currently undertaken by US Dept of Commerce. Obviously, therefore
the CIRP proposed only to take up that role which is currently played by
the US Dept of commerce.

The question then that I have for you; how is ICANN working under the
oversight of US government not a 'command and control' structure, and I
hear it always referred to as a multistakeholder structure, but if the
same role was played together by all countries it became a 'command and
control' structure?  (The current IANA transition process not being
relevant here bec it was not envisaged at the time that CIRP was
proposed and then roundly criticised).

Second part: "these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later stage
(perhaps too late?)" (from your email below.

I have said this before, the proposal itself said, we are open to
discussing, the Indian gov rep at Nairobi IGF, immediately after the
proposal as made, said, we are open to discuss and change it, and at the
next CSTD meeting, India again said we are open to change it and invited
ideas. No response, other than, the whole thing should simply be
abandoned. Most importantly, India actually separated the oversight part
from that for 'other public policy making' in its submission to the UN
Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation whose precise mandate was to come
up with an appropriate global Internet governance related institutional
architecture, esp for 'public policy making' plus ICANN oversight. Civil
society members were in there in that WG, and those outside made written
submissions, over two rounds, but any proposal to have an OECD kind of
Internet related public policy mechanism remained fully ignored, and
considered as multilateralist and therefore evil...

So, I cannot see how you and others decide that it "was too late"... The
right to make the rules of game, and what is the right time, what is the
right way to propose a thing, and so on, is one of the biggest forms of
hegemonic power.... I dont accept it. The proposal still stands today,
you, and others,  need to comment on it as it is being proposed to you,
as I am proposing to you, and not take the cover of, that was the wrong
time, and the wrong way, and so on...

As I said, the WG on enhanced cooperation is being reconstituted, you
and others here are global players in the IG space by choice and
profession; my question to you all is, what is your response to my
proposal (forget others) to develop a Internet related public policy
development mechanism inside the UN "on the exact model" as it happens
in the OECD. I will await yours and other people's response. And if I do
not get it, keep asking this question. This is about the denial of the
right of self determination and right of democratic participation of the
huge majority of the world's population (non OECD countries). A right,
which in view is, even prior to all other rights, a right which
determines what rights are...

Lastly, your comment on ITfC's positions: yes, we have always asked for
an OECD like Internet related policy mechanism in the UN, in the exact
model of how it works in the OECD, where it gets called as a
multistakeholder model. For ICANN oversight we has for a different kind
of model. Not only ITfC but JNC (Just Net Coalition) has made similar
demands (see our submissions to the the NetMundial Conference)... But
both IT for Change and JNC get branded as pro - multilateralism and much
of the dominant civil society here by contrast as pro
multi-stakeholderism, while, as should be obvious from this discussion,
the *real and only difference* is that we refuse to work with US- and
OCED-centric 'global' policy and IG models and ask instead to have all
countries equally involved, while preserving the same amount of
multistakeholder participation as it exists in extant models today. (I
say this with full authority, and am ready to stand by it.) But the fact
that the mentioned labels have been so successfully affixed and
sustained speaks of the power of hegemonic discourse, even within the so
called civil society... I think we need to be doing better than that. We
need to be able to discuss things opening, and provide answers to the
questions that get asked about our positions. If even civil society does
not do it, who would.

parminder

On Sunday 07 February 2016 05:40 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your
> detailed answer.
>
> I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD
> policy-making process and particularly on how it manages
> multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary
> impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way to
> improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often raised
> on a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements over time,
> at least in my opinion).
>
> I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents or
> activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my recollection the
> opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements of the proposal that
> /did/ envision this type of binding action, which is far different
> from what the OECD does.
>
> Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented in
> the UN:
>
>   * Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and
>     operational functioning of the Internet, including global
>     standards setting;
>   * Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on
>     Internet-related public policies;
>   * Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;
>
> All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some
> branches of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but
> this is neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been
> something the committee has done historically in the context of
> Internet policy. By contrast, facilitating treaties was a key listed
> objective for the CIRP. Likewise, arbitration and dispute resolution
> is not only an operationally binding activity, but is typically only
> employed where there are hard underlying legal obligations (ie
> treaties) between states that can lead to disputes requiring adjudication.
>
> Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN, but
> all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational
> functioning of the Internet". This would include, for example, the
> IETF and other technical standards bodies alongside ICANN.
>
> The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably closer
> to multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that the civil
> society stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any reports or
> policy instruments it generates. As these instruments are not really
> binding anyways, that form of dissent can be relatively meaningful
> because it undermines the legitimacy of the policy instrument and
> legitimacy is really the only currency it has. As a venue I, at least,
> have found it worthwhile engaging in, even though as with all policy
> processes it's had its ups and downs. Still, it's not ideal and wholly
> unsuited to generating binding policy as opposed to just generating
> policy. It is nowhere near robust enough for generating treaties or
> overseeing all the technical communities and ICANN.
>
> Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing like
> this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
> stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command and
> control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions. Most, if
> not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal related to this
> particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact that it would
> bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply creating yet
> one more policy-making venue.
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
>
> On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:
>> Dear Tamir
>>
>> A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with this
>> important issue.
>> Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied...
>>
>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>
>>> If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state
>>> Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the
>>> proposal did /not/ follow the OECD model.
>>
>> I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP proposal
>> , and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for Change gave a
>> submission
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf>
>> to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did a
>> background paper
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011> for IBSA
>> meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public documents), which sought a
>> UN Body on Internet policies taking from the OECD model. This OECD
>> model was specifically discussed in both these papers. The mandate of
>> CIRP
>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>
>> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including the Committee
>> on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point to be discussed
>> later). The stakeholder consultation process of CIRP was exactly
>> taken from the OECD model, plus a very important additional element
>> that "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP" (OECD having no such
>> system and thus being deficient to that extent in its
>> multistakeholder content)
>>
>> See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy here
>> <http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=>,
>> and that of its predecessor CICCP here
>> <http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=>
>> . These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop
>> policy frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members. Policy
>> development is the central objective of OECD, and this is written
>> upfront on its Internet economy page
>> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/> 'The OECD focuses on the
>> development of better policies..."
>>
>> When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like they
>> exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on, the
>> respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty development
>> process.
>>
>> UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to basically
>> be doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading of the
>> proposal, with the same multistakeholder model, only reinforcement
>> through formation of an organic linkage with the IGF and inviting its
>> inputs. So, I will like to ask you, how has India's CIRP proposal
>> become a multilateral, inter-state, IG body, while OECD's CDEP is a
>> multistakeholder, harmless body? That was my original question.
>>
>> Now, if you want to  focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on just
>> one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets discuss it.
>>
>> Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we suggested
>> just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN oversight for
>> this body.... But I can see that when India was making a proposal to
>> the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the most contested global IG
>> issue, of the US's unilateral oversight over ICANN, and the express
>> mandate of the WSIS that"all governments should have an equal role
>> and responsibility for international Internet governance and for
>> ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet"
>> (para 68), which directly speaks to equal oversight role over ICANN,
>> if there has to be one. Now, India did not have time to make an
>> elaborate separate proposal for oversight transition, and put that
>> role under the proposed new Committee for Internet Related Policies.
>> In doing so, it picked up the language from 2 Models of IG
>> architecture put forward by the (multistakeholder) Working Group on
>> IG <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> .
>>
>> Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in the UN
>> clearly called
>>
>> "for the establishment of an open­ended working group under
>> the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for
>> CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of
>> all
>> Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek tofill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept
>> of Enhanced Co­operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"
>>
>> So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have just said,
>> remove the oversight role from this committee and the rest is ok...
>> Within a few months, at the next CSTD meeting, India again said, tell
>> us what issues you have with our proposal and lets discuss them. No
>> response. Then in another few months, on its own, in its submission
>> to the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India separated the issue and
>> proposed mechanism for general Internet related public policy
>> development (as OECD does) and the oversight role, on which they
>> asked for a separate discussion and possible mechanism.
>>
>> But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as before, to Northern
>> government and big business, but also to the tech community and most
>> of the civil society... And this is the hypocrisy that I point to.
>>>
>>> The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a
>>> multi-stakeholder context.
>>
>> This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic
>> constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have linked to
>> OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities of UN bodies,
>> like UNESCO <http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco>, WHO
>> <http://www.who.int/about/en/>, UNDP
>> <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html>,
>> and if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant
>> mode of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies as
>> listed) then maybe you can see this one
>> <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> ....  Most
>> of these do more or less exactly the same stuff as OECD committees
>> do... How often have you seen hard law coming out of the UN . And
>> then OECD also produces binding agreements... What and how is what
>> OECD does 'soft' and what UN does 'hard'... There is no IMHO basis
>> for your statement and claim.
>>
>> As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring to
>> OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN CIRP
>> be not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees
>> multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP proposal,
>> but if you havent it is again here
>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>,
>> and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as OECD's
>> CDEP.
>>
>> It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email
>> denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and are
>> calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for the
>> hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder
>> participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech community
>> rep recently called the OECD process as "multistakeholderism at work"
>> ( http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions ). Such
>> adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder, are
>> commonplace....  But the same people call a proposal form developing
>> countries with the same stakeholder participation model as
>> multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is extremely
>> unfair. And a great example of hegemonic discourse at work, extremely
>> efficiently.
>>
>>
>>> On digital issues, civil society has direct input into that
>>> policy-making process, and this has been the case since the Seoul
>>> Ministerial in 2009 
>>
>> I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such
>> inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But in
>> any case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed for the
>> UN CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups preceding
>> the inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD.
>>
>>> (the recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy which
>>> you refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed functionally
>>> with respect to the nature or scope of digital issues undertaken or
>>> civil society's role therein).
>>
>> I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but
>> proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" (
>> http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf
>>   )  while changing its name in 2014.  What I want to know is whether
>> any civil society group asked for change in this Committees
>> stakeholder consultation processes to making it 'really
>> multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not considered so
>> (which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP proposal). I know that
>> nothing like this happened. Why?
>>
>>>
>>> The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports or,
>>> at most, soft law instruments 
>>
>> As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language in
>> such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply the
>> hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and sustain.
>>
>>> -- nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful for
>>> civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt to
>>> resolve policy issues. We definitely do not have the final say on
>>> these policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state parties.
>>
>> Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...
>>
>>
>>> But the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, 
>>
>> If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of
>> being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.
>>
>>> meaning they will keep working until views of all member states and
>>> of the four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant: the
>>> business community, the technical community, a trade union community
>>> and on telecommunications and digital issues, civil society). To
>>> date there has been only one single occasion where a policy document
>>> was adopted by the OECD over the sustained objections of civil society.
>>
>> That was the single most important document produced by the committee
>> "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others issues too I
>> know, they listen but the inter gov committee finally decides. And I
>> am sure that much has been written in OECD policy docs that does not
>> pass full civil society muster.... You are over-blowing the
>> camaraderie.  And if there  is indeed some kind of a 'temporary and
>> limited congruence' of libertarian civil society and tech community
>> with the Northern countries on Internet issues, that has a different
>> basis, and is essentially temporary and limited. Such congruence
>> often takes place between civil society and developing country views
>> in most global social, economic and cultural polity issues. Lets not
>> get into that discussion. 9But if you want to, I am happy to )..
>>>
>>> Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on
>>> anyone. In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely
>>> unimplemented by OECD member states. They tend to form more of a
>>> reference or normative statement that is at most useful as one
>>> single input into domestic policy-making processes (I note
>>> incidentally that I do a lot of national policy development and that
>>> in my experience most OECD policies tend to be more useful to civil
>>> society than to other segments of society, for whatever that's worth).
>>
>> Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read in
>> detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I referenced
>> and others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have been reading about.
>>>
>>> My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the time
>>> (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.
>>
>> I hope my above references corrects it.....
>>> It was to be based on a command and control model. 
>>
>> It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20 percent
>> had the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to Tunis
>> Agenda references India needed to put somewhere in its proposal, (2)
>> India was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in less than a year
>> after the initial proposal, in its proposal to WG on Enhanced
>> Cooperation, India split the proposal to separate the oversight
>> mechanism issue... However, the attitude to, and name calling vis a
>> vis, its proposal for a Un platform to develop Internet related
>> policies, and similar proposals by groups like mine, did not move an
>> inch... It was the same diabolical multilateral,, inter gov,
>> proposal, out to control the Internet...
>>
>> This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country view,
>> which does not behove the global civil society.
>>
>>> It envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the OECD,
>>> directly implements its policies by its control of the root, etc),
>>> but with governments at the helm as opposed to the stakeholder model. 
>>
>> Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper
>> since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is
>> outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN. And
>> even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and mis-characterise
>> proposals from developing country (given their under-capacity to
>> defend them), it is easy to see that the wording on 'oversight' in
>> the Indiam proposal came from the WGIG report, where the distinctions
>> between oversight and actual ICANN operations was clearly made, over
>> much diligent discussions in an entirely multi-stakeholder fashion.
>>> Indeed, one element of the proposal would have been to place ICANN
>>> (and perhaps some of the other technical communities) under the
>>> control of the new UN governance body. This is very different from
>>> the OECD soft policy-development process.
>>
>> Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been discussed
>> in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by subsequent Indian
>> proposals.
>>
>> I  am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further
>> information or clarification that you might require.
>>
>> And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has become
>> a deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )...
>>
>> Best regards
>> parminder
>>>
>>> All the best (and happy 2016 !),
>>> Tamir
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a non
>>>>> sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like the OECD
>>>>> have to imply a normative endorsement of the status quo? Working
>>>>> with the system that we've currently got can go hand in hand with
>>>>> efforts to make the system as a whole better. Not to mention the
>>>>> value of damage control.
>>>>
>>>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the
>>>> engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial that
>>>> the model of Internet policy making that they employ is really a
>>>> inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
>>>> multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
>>>> society, even though we may be working with you per force. And also
>>>> ask these governments how they brazenly run such a inter-gov policy
>>>> system when they criticise any similar effort by UN as being
>>>> distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and say pious things
>>>> like that Internet is just not the kind of thing to be governed in
>>>> an inter-gov manner. Are we ready to make such a statement at the
>>>> Ministrial, while, ok, accepting your logic, not stopping to engage
>>>> with OECD's policy processes, in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?
>>>>
>>>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011 when
>>>> they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism proposal which
>>>> was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's model as being
>>>> inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably bad, representing
>>>> the worst things that any human mind could ever come up with...
>>>>
>>>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on Digital
>>>> Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee on
>>>> computers, communication and information policy -- this happened
>>>> much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of India's UN
>>>> proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee was being
>>>> formed, civil society tell OECD  that Internet cannot be governed
>>>> in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming this new
>>>> committee thy should make it genuinely multistakeholder.... No, no
>>>> one spoke a word.... I am ready to be told that I am wrong. To
>>>> repeat, not one word was said, much less a statement made.  it was
>>>> not that civil society asked for it, and they were refused, whereby
>>>> I may accept what you are saying... They never uttered a single
>>>> word.... Such is its pusillanimity in front of the powerful, while
>>>> the real job of civil society is to challenge the most powerful.
>>>>
>>>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in
>>>> the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd voice
>>>> recently spoke about whether OECD's process is multistakeholder
>>>> enough, the general consensus was, leave that aside, lets focus on
>>>> substantive issues!!
>>>>
>>>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage, suddenly
>>>> no one can even think of any important enough non ICANN-y
>>>> Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have spent years
>>>> wondering whether any or enough of such  issues even exist. It is a
>>>> real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the OECD, and such
>>>> policy issues roll out like no ones business - work in the Internet
>>>> age, sharing economy, economics of data, algorithmic economy,
>>>> policy implications of internet of things, big data and social
>>>> profiling ........... The list is unending. Civil society itself
>>>> actively keeps suggesting new policy areas and engaging with them.
>>>>
>>>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums like
>>>> this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet or
>>>> digital policies related body, and all such areas can very well be
>>>> dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted domains
>>>> (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells OECD's
>>>> Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous when OECD
>>>> has about 50 other committees dealing with every possible area,
>>>> where, by  that logic , specific issues of Internet impact could
>>>> have been adequately dealt with.
>>>>
>>>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>>> Lea
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>     Grande Parm,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Dear Carlos,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Nice to hear from you!
>>>>>
>>>>>     I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil
>>>>>     society section that engages with OECD's Internet policy
>>>>>     processes is really a pretty big part of the civil society
>>>>>     groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my question may be
>>>>>     taken just as being addressed to this quite big civil society
>>>>>     section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory stand when
>>>>>     they are at the OECD (the club of the rich countries) vis a
>>>>>     vis when they are at the UN (a grouping of all countries) .
>>>>>
>>>>>     best regards, parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>     Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>>     the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>>     become my pet question...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>>     all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>>     stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>>     OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>>     Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>>     on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>>     Hi all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>>     is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>>     Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>>     important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>>     coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>>     OECD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Best, Carol
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160207/8e34a1d3/attachment.htm>

From veni at veni.com  Sun Feb  7 15:38:28 2016
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:38:28 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca>
 <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net> <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca>
 <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <56B7AB44.40101@veni.com>

Parminder, just two comments below.

On 02/07/16 04:57, parminder wrote:
> my question to you all is, what is your response to my proposal 
> (forget others) to develop a Internet related public policy 
> development mechanism inside the UN... And if I do not get it, keep 
> asking this question. 

You could, of course, continue repeating the question, if you are not 
happy with the answers you get, but let's look at the only relevant fact:

The WSIS+10 outcome document 
<http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN95735.pdf> was 
passed at the UN General Assembly, and it addressed your concerns.

The document was drafted with the active participation of the 
governments of India, Brazil, China, Russia, USA, as well as G-77, the 
EU, and many others. Clearly majority of the world population!
It was accepted with no objections whatsoever.
You were there, you spoke at the end of the WSIS High Level Meeting, and 
you made your point there, too. I am not sure why you continue to ask 
the question over and over again, as if you expect a different response 
on this mailing list, than the one you got via the WSIS+10 review 
process. A simple reference to the accepted outcome document is the 
natural response.

But since we, at ISOC-Bulgaria, have had similar issues like yours years 
ago, allow me to share our experience, and our conclusions, which 
slightly differ from yours.

In our chapter we had to fight with the government for the "right of 
democratic participation", as you say it, in the Internet-related public 
policy discussions - this was about 17 years ago. We were a very young 
ISOC chapter, if I remember correctly, we were the 6th chapter 
historically.
It was 1999.
We started a fight against the proposed by the government 
Internet-policy with a court case at the Supreme Administrative Court 
(see details here <http://isoc.bg/kpd/index-eng.html>, in English). So, 
even in a developing country, with less democratic traditions than India 
(don't forget - we had our Constitution accepted just 8 years earlier, 
and there has not been a case against the government until then; we 
couldn't find a lawyer to represent us, so I had to take personally this 
task, as I my degree is in law), such a thing is possible - to 
successfully change the Internet-related policy of a country.

Listening and watching the contributions by the member-states at the UN, 
I can share something you have also observed, as you were at the UN in 
December: governments around the world have engaged to different degree 
with the broader Internet community, businesses, academic institutions, 
end-users, experts, etc., to better understand the way the Internet 
works. I assure you - 17 years ago was much more difficult: we had to 
explain to the government what the Internet is, and did that by 
comparing it to... the fax;-)

> This is about the denial of the right of self determination and right 
> of democratic participation of the huge majority of the world's 
> population (non OECD countries).

Clearly there's disagreement between your assessment of the WSIS+10 
outcome document, and the way we at ISOC-Bulgaria (Bulgaria is not a 
member of the OECD, by the way), and many other chapters around the 
world, see the way we participate in these debates.
 From national and regional point of view, we have found the national 
and regional IGFs to be an excellent way to approach the Internet 
issues, and solve some, if not all.
At the UN agencies, we have seen increased cooperation between ISOC and 
some of them, and between ISOC chapters on the national turf, too. For 
example, ISOC Bulgaria executed an UNDP project for e-municipality back 
in 2003, and this was one of the many projects we have done 
successfully. And it gave us yet one more avenue towards the government, 
and the way they define their policies.
Fast forward to 2010, the Bulgarian government participated at ITU 
PleniPot 2010, and had a contribution, which ISOC Bulgaria supported. 
Nobody has denied participation, and if a country has done that, perhaps 
you could reach to the local chapter of the Internet Society (if there 
<http://www.isoc.org/apps/maps/> is such in the respected country), and 
see how they could engage (with) their governments in a substantive way. 
But certainly, you don't mean that India is such a country, as they were 
(as I witnessed) very active in the WSIS+10 discussions, and were 
actually among the leaders, as noted by the New York Times (I've sent 
you the URL couple of weeks ago, in another discussion on this list).

-- 

Best,
Veni Markovski
Internet Society - Bulgaria
http://www.isoc.bg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160207/6ddf038f/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Feb  8 06:16:53 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:46:53 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing, including
 zero rating
Message-ID: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>

(apologies for cross posting)

http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf

shorter press release is at

http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf


Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may set the
trend for developing countries...

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/a1adf567/attachment.htm>

From renata.avila at webfoundation.org  Mon Feb  8 06:53:09 2016
From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:53:09 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>

It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software community,
grassroots, comedians. Bravo.

CONGRATULATIONS [image: Inline image 1]

Renata Avila

Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto

Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A B43D
89CA

Telephone +49 15252609522

@webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>

*1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| *
*www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter:
@webfoundation*


On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

> (apologies for cross posting)
>
>
>
> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
>
> shorter press release is at
>
> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
>
>
> Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may set the
> trend for developing countries...
>
> parminder
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/1a56f231/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: giphy (5).gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 293601 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/1a56f231/attachment.gif>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Feb  8 07:28:32 2016
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:28:32 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <56B889F0.8090706@cafonso.ca>

Thanks, Parm.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 2/8/16 09:16, parminder wrote:
> (apologies for cross posting)
> 
> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
> 
> shorter press release is at
> 
> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
> 
> 
> Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may set the
> trend for developing countries...
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - http://cgi.br

GPG 0x9EE8F8E3

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Feb  8 10:02:06 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 20:32:06 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca>
 <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net> <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca>
 <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <56B8ADEE.5010102@itforchange.net>


The first point in my response was about the nature of UN based
proposals for Internet related policy making, which I insist remain on
the table. we especially cannot dodge them in view of the new UN WG on
enhanced cooperation which will begin working later this year. In that
regard my question is:

What is the response of civil society groups here to the proposal to
institute an Internet policy development model in the UN which is
exactly, repeat, exactly, the same as the CDEP process in the OECD
(whereby the only difference will be that instead of the 34 richest
countries making policy, there will the full list of 190 or so, or a
rotating smaller representative group of them, plus a clear
institutionalised linkage to the IGF)?

The second, complimentary question is, as follows:

The only logical and defensible reason for not accepting the above
proposal that I can think of is that such a proposal about does not
represent a mutistakeholder model of Internet policy making, and the
major civil society groups and persons here will only accept a
multistakeholder model of policy making (whatever it is).

Fair enough. In that case, is there a proposal to make this case to the
forthcoming OECD ministerial organised around the work of its Committee
on Digital Economy Policy (which is OECD's Internet policy making
organ)? I mean to at least clearly say, in a specific statement,  to the
ministerial that we do not accept their model of Internet policy making,
since it is not multistakeholder (and also offer a multistakeholder
option, which if you refuse their model, of course they'd ask for). This
is the first ministerial after the CDEP was formed with a re-adopted
mandate, which for the first time claims that it develops policy through
a 'multistakeholder process'.  Since, the civil society groups failed to
raise this issue when the CDEP was formed 2 years back and they were
asked for their inputs, would they want to now correct their mistake,
and take this issue up in the forthcoming public meeting of the OECD
ministrial?

If not, why so? Where do their multistakeholderist energies, which are
to be seen to be believed when the arena is the UN, disappear in front
of the comity of the richest countries of the world ? Whom they join in
the first place in the UN arena to sing multistakeholderist paeans. Why
not expose this extreme hypocrisy of theirs, which is so easily done,
they would not have words to come back with, which, excuse my slipping
into cynicism, I btw i suspect is why most groups dont do it. we cant do
such things to our friends, right!

In the CS advisory group to the OECD's CDEP, one person did propose that
it should seek greater multistakeholderism in CDEP's policy making
processes, but this proposal was made light of by others, seeking focus
on substantive issues instead!! Why such shyness with the OECD, when the
same groups are never short on reprimanding UN bodies - extant or
proposed, on this matter?

The job of civil society is to speak up to the most powerful, not be in
convenient alliances with them.

Also, CoE's Internet policy mechanism is "right now" seeking civil
society input into their IG strategy.... It makes policy frameworks in a
similar manner as OCED (but apparently with less formal stakeholder
systems). Why not tell them, this is what we think is multistakholder
policy making, and we would expect CoE to adopt it. That is our input,
or at least one of the inputs, to their IG strategy (It is CoE's treaty
on cyber crime that is often pushed post facto as the 'gold standards'
for developing countries to accede to. A cursory search throws up
another one on 'automatic processing of individual data'. But somehow
policy, even hard law based, processes of the 'good countries' done in
fully multi-lateral ways seem to completely fall off civil society's
radar.)  )

It is time for those who occupy the space of the global civil society
working in the IG area to engage with these uncomfortable questions.
They would not be able to retain global legitimacy if they do not...

parminder


On Sunday 07 February 2016 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
> Dear Tamir
>
> Thanks for your response, which is the most well argued and
> comprehensive one that I have ever received for this question that I
> have asked several times in the last many years. So thanks again.
>
> There is another important aspect of your email that I would like to
> respond to but let me first do so for
>
>     "Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing
>     like this, or that these elements could have been stripped from
>     the CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed
>     at a later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these
>     command and control elements seemed as integral if not primary
>     functions. Most, if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP
>     proposal related to this particular aspect of the proposal, which
>     is the fact that it would bring about multi-lateral control as
>     opposed to simply creating yet one more policy-making venue."
>
> I will come to IT for Change part the last bec it is the least
> important thing here.
>
> The "command and control" aspect of CIRP that you point to chiefly is
> about the ICANN oversight part (the treaty facilitating aspect being
> common to OECD and CoE committees and thus is symmetric ). Please note
> that the CIRP proposal clearly says that it has picked CIRP's mandate
> items from the institutional models suggested by the Working Group on
> IG's report. This report clearly says that the oversight role is the
> role currently undertaken by US Dept of Commerce. Obviously, therefore
> the CIRP proposed only to take up that role which is currently played
> by the US Dept of commerce.
>
> The question then that I have for you; how is ICANN working under the
> oversight of US government not a 'command and control' structure, and
> I hear it always referred to as a multistakeholder structure, but if
> the same role was played together by all countries it became a
> 'command and control' structure?  (The current IANA transition process
> not being relevant here bec it was not envisaged at the time that CIRP
> was proposed and then roundly criticised).
>
> Second part: "these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
> stage (perhaps too late?)" (from your email below.
>
> I have said this before, the proposal itself said, we are open to
> discussing, the Indian gov rep at Nairobi IGF, immediately after the
> proposal as made, said, we are open to discuss and change it, and at
> the next CSTD meeting, India again said we are open to change it and
> invited ideas. No response, other than, the whole thing should simply
> be abandoned. Most importantly, India actually separated the oversight
> part from that for 'other public policy making' in its submission to
> the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation whose precise mandate was
> to come up with an appropriate global Internet governance related
> institutional architecture, esp for 'public policy making' plus ICANN
> oversight. Civil society members were in there in that WG, and those
> outside made written submissions, over two rounds, but any proposal to
> have an OECD kind of Internet related public policy mechanism remained
> fully ignored, and considered as multilateralist and therefore evil...
>
> So, I cannot see how you and others decide that it "was too late"...
> The right to make the rules of game, and what is the right time, what
> is the right way to propose a thing, and so on, is one of the biggest
> forms of hegemonic power.... I dont accept it. The proposal still
> stands today, you, and others,  need to comment on it as it is being
> proposed to you, as I am proposing to you, and not take the cover of,
> that was the wrong time, and the wrong way, and so on...
>
> As I said, the WG on enhanced cooperation is being reconstituted, you
> and others here are global players in the IG space by choice and
> profession; my question to you all is, what is your response to my
> proposal (forget others) to develop a Internet related public policy
> development mechanism inside the UN "on the exact model" as it happens
> in the OECD. I will await yours and other people's response. And if I
> do not get it, keep asking this question. This is about the denial of
> the right of self determination and right of democratic participation
> of the huge majority of the world's population (non OECD countries). A
> right, which in view is, even prior to all other rights, a right which
> determines what rights are...
>
> Lastly, your comment on ITfC's positions: yes, we have always asked
> for an OECD like Internet related policy mechanism in the UN, in the
> exact model of how it works in the OECD, where it gets called as a
> multistakeholder model. For ICANN oversight we has for a different
> kind of model. Not only ITfC but JNC (Just Net Coalition) has made
> similar demands (see our submissions to the the NetMundial
> Conference)... But both IT for Change and JNC get branded as pro -
> multilateralism and much of the dominant civil society here by
> contrast as pro multi-stakeholderism, while, as should be obvious from
> this discussion, the *real and only difference* is that we refuse to
> work with US- and OCED-centric 'global' policy and IG models and ask
> instead to have all countries equally involved, while preserving the
> same amount of multistakeholder participation as it exists in extant
> models today. (I say this with full authority, and am ready to stand
> by it.) But the fact that the mentioned labels have been so
> successfully affixed and sustained speaks of the power of hegemonic
> discourse, even within the so called civil society... I think we need
> to be doing better than that. We need to be able to discuss things
> opening, and provide answers to the questions that get asked about our
> positions. If even civil society does not do it, who would.
>
> parminder
>
> On Sunday 07 February 2016 05:40 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>> Dear Parminder,
>>
>> I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your
>> detailed answer.
>>
>> I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD
>> policy-making process and particularly on how it manages
>> multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary
>> impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way to
>> improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often raised
>> on a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements over
>> time, at least in my opinion).
>>
>> I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents or
>> activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my recollection
>> the opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements of the proposal
>> that /did/ envision this type of binding action, which is far
>> different from what the OECD does.
>>
>> Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented in
>> the UN:
>>
>>   * Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and
>>     operational functioning of the Internet, including global
>>     standards setting;
>>   * Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on
>>     Internet-related public policies;
>>   * Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;
>>
>> All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some
>> branches of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but
>> this is neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been
>> something the committee has done historically in the context of
>> Internet policy. By contrast, facilitating treaties was a key listed
>> objective for the CIRP. Likewise, arbitration and dispute resolution
>> is not only an operationally binding activity, but is typically only
>> employed where there are hard underlying legal obligations (ie
>> treaties) between states that can lead to disputes requiring
>> adjudication.
>>
>> Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN,
>> but all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational
>> functioning of the Internet". This would include, for example, the
>> IETF and other technical standards bodies alongside ICANN.
>>
>> The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably closer
>> to multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that the civil
>> society stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any reports or
>> policy instruments it generates. As these instruments are not really
>> binding anyways, that form of dissent can be relatively meaningful
>> because it undermines the legitimacy of the policy instrument and
>> legitimacy is really the only currency it has. As a venue I, at
>> least, have found it worthwhile engaging in, even though as with all
>> policy processes it's had its ups and downs. Still, it's not ideal
>> and wholly unsuited to generating binding policy as opposed to just
>> generating policy. It is nowhere near robust enough for generating
>> treaties or overseeing all the technical communities and ICANN.
>>
>> Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing like
>> this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
>> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
>> stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command and
>> control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions. Most,
>> if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal related to
>> this particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact that it
>> would bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply creating
>> yet one more policy-making venue.
>>
>> Best,
>> Tamir
>>
>>
>> On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:
>>> Dear Tamir
>>>
>>> A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with
>>> this important issue.
>>> Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied...
>>>
>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>>
>>>> If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state
>>>> Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the
>>>> proposal did /not/ follow the OECD model.
>>>
>>> I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP proposal
>>> , and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for Change gave
>>> a submission
>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf>
>>> to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did a
>>> background paper
>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011> for IBSA
>>> meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public documents), which sought
>>> a UN Body on Internet policies taking from the OECD model. This OECD
>>> model was specifically discussed in both these papers. The mandate
>>> of CIRP
>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>
>>> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including the Committee
>>> on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point to be
>>> discussed later). The stakeholder consultation process of CIRP was
>>> exactly taken from the OECD model, plus a very important additional
>>> element that "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP" (OECD having no
>>> such system and thus being deficient to that extent in its
>>> multistakeholder content)
>>>
>>> See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy here
>>> <http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=>,
>>> and that of its predecessor CICCP here
>>> <http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=>
>>> . These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop
>>> policy frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members. Policy
>>> development is the central objective of OECD, and this is written
>>> upfront on its Internet economy page
>>> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/> 'The OECD focuses on the
>>> development of better policies..."
>>>
>>> When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like they
>>> exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on, the
>>> respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty development
>>> process.
>>>
>>> UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to basically
>>> be doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading of the
>>> proposal, with the same multistakeholder model, only reinforcement
>>> through formation of an organic linkage with the IGF and inviting
>>> its inputs. So, I will like to ask you, how has India's CIRP
>>> proposal become a multilateral, inter-state, IG body, while OECD's
>>> CDEP is a multistakeholder, harmless body? That was my original
>>> question.
>>>
>>> Now, if you want to  focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on
>>> just one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets
>>> discuss it.
>>>
>>> Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we suggested
>>> just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN oversight for
>>> this body.... But I can see that when India was making a proposal to
>>> the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the most contested global IG
>>> issue, of the US's unilateral oversight over ICANN, and the express
>>> mandate of the WSIS that"all governments should have an equal role
>>> and responsibility for international Internet governance and for
>>> ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet"
>>> (para 68), which directly speaks to equal oversight role over ICANN,
>>> if there has to be one. Now, India did not have time to make an
>>> elaborate separate proposal for oversight transition, and put that
>>> role under the proposed new Committee for Internet Related Policies.
>>> In doing so, it picked up the language from 2 Models of IG
>>> architecture put forward by the (multistakeholder) Working Group on
>>> IG <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> .
>>>
>>> Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in the UN
>>> clearly called
>>>
>>> "for the establishment of an open­ended working group under
>>> the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for
>>> CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of
>>> all
>>> Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek tofill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept
>>> of Enhanced Co­operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"
>>>
>>> So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have just said,
>>> remove the oversight role from this committee and the rest is ok...
>>> Within a few months, at the next CSTD meeting, India again said,
>>> tell us what issues you have with our proposal and lets discuss
>>> them. No response. Then in another few months, on its own, in its
>>> submission to the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India separated
>>> the issue and proposed mechanism for general Internet related public
>>> policy development (as OECD does) and the oversight role, on which
>>> they asked for a separate discussion and possible mechanism.
>>>
>>> But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as before, to
>>> Northern government and big business, but also to the tech community
>>> and most of the civil society... And this is the hypocrisy that I
>>> point to.
>>>>
>>>> The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a
>>>> multi-stakeholder context.
>>>
>>> This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic
>>> constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have linked
>>> to OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities of UN
>>> bodies, like UNESCO
>>> <http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco>, WHO
>>> <http://www.who.int/about/en/>, UNDP
>>> <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html>,
>>> and if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant
>>> mode of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies as
>>> listed) then maybe you can see this one
>>> <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> ....  Most
>>> of these do more or less exactly the same stuff as OECD committees
>>> do... How often have you seen hard law coming out of the UN . And
>>> then OECD also produces binding agreements... What and how is what
>>> OECD does 'soft' and what UN does 'hard'... There is no IMHO basis
>>> for your statement and claim.
>>>
>>> As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring to
>>> OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN CIRP
>>> be not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees
>>> multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP proposal,
>>> but if you havent it is again here
>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>,
>>> and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as
>>> OECD's CDEP.
>>>
>>> It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email
>>> denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and
>>> are calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for
>>> the hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder
>>> participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech
>>> community rep recently called the OECD process as
>>> "multistakeholderism at work" (
>>> http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions ). Such
>>> adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder,
>>> are commonplace....  But the same people call a proposal form
>>> developing countries with the same stakeholder participation model
>>> as multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is extremely
>>> unfair. And a great example of hegemonic discourse at work,
>>> extremely efficiently.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On digital issues, civil society has direct input into that
>>>> policy-making process, and this has been the case since the Seoul
>>>> Ministerial in 2009 
>>>
>>> I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such
>>> inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But in
>>> any case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed for
>>> the UN CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups
>>> preceding the inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD.
>>>
>>>> (the recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy which
>>>> you refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed
>>>> functionally with respect to the nature or scope of digital issues
>>>> undertaken or civil society's role therein).
>>>
>>> I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but
>>> proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" (
>>> http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf
>>>   )  while changing its name in 2014.  What I want to know is
>>> whether any civil society group asked for change in this Committees
>>> stakeholder consultation processes to making it 'really
>>> multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not considered so
>>> (which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP proposal). I know that
>>> nothing like this happened. Why?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports or,
>>>> at most, soft law instruments 
>>>
>>> As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language in
>>> such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply the
>>> hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and sustain.
>>>
>>>> -- nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful
>>>> for civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt to
>>>> resolve policy issues. We definitely do not have the final say on
>>>> these policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state parties.
>>>
>>> Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...
>>>
>>>
>>>> But the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, 
>>>
>>> If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of
>>> being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.
>>>
>>>> meaning they will keep working until views of all member states and
>>>> of the four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant: the
>>>> business community, the technical community, a trade union
>>>> community and on telecommunications and digital issues, civil
>>>> society). To date there has been only one single occasion where a
>>>> policy document was adopted by the OECD over the sustained
>>>> objections of civil society.
>>>
>>> That was the single most important document produced by the
>>> committee "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others
>>> issues too I know, they listen but the inter gov committee finally
>>> decides. And I am sure that much has been written in OECD policy
>>> docs that does not pass full civil society muster.... You are
>>> over-blowing the camaraderie.  And if there  is indeed some kind of
>>> a 'temporary and limited congruence' of libertarian civil society
>>> and tech community with the Northern countries on Internet issues,
>>> that has a different basis, and is essentially temporary and
>>> limited. Such congruence often takes place between civil society and
>>> developing country views in most global social, economic and
>>> cultural polity issues. Lets not get into that discussion. 9But if
>>> you want to, I am happy to )..
>>>>
>>>> Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on
>>>> anyone. In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely
>>>> unimplemented by OECD member states. They tend to form more of a
>>>> reference or normative statement that is at most useful as one
>>>> single input into domestic policy-making processes (I note
>>>> incidentally that I do a lot of national policy development and
>>>> that in my experience most OECD policies tend to be more useful to
>>>> civil society than to other segments of society, for whatever
>>>> that's worth).
>>>
>>> Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read in
>>> detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I referenced
>>> and others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have been reading about.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the
>>>> time (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.
>>>
>>> I hope my above references corrects it.....
>>>> It was to be based on a command and control model. 
>>>
>>> It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20 percent
>>> had the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to Tunis
>>> Agenda references India needed to put somewhere in its proposal, (2)
>>> India was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in less than a year
>>> after the initial proposal, in its proposal to WG on Enhanced
>>> Cooperation, India split the proposal to separate the oversight
>>> mechanism issue... However, the attitude to, and name calling vis a
>>> vis, its proposal for a Un platform to develop Internet related
>>> policies, and similar proposals by groups like mine, did not move an
>>> inch... It was the same diabolical multilateral,, inter gov,
>>> proposal, out to control the Internet...
>>>
>>> This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country view,
>>> which does not behove the global civil society.
>>>
>>>> It envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the OECD,
>>>> directly implements its policies by its control of the root, etc),
>>>> but with governments at the helm as opposed to the stakeholder model. 
>>>
>>> Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper
>>> since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is
>>> outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN. And
>>> even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and mis-characterise
>>> proposals from developing country (given their under-capacity to
>>> defend them), it is easy to see that the wording on 'oversight' in
>>> the Indiam proposal came from the WGIG report, where the
>>> distinctions between oversight and actual ICANN operations was
>>> clearly made, over much diligent discussions in an entirely
>>> multi-stakeholder fashion.
>>>> Indeed, one element of the proposal would have been to place ICANN
>>>> (and perhaps some of the other technical communities) under the
>>>> control of the new UN governance body. This is very different from
>>>> the OECD soft policy-development process.
>>>
>>> Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been
>>> discussed in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by subsequent
>>> Indian proposals.
>>>
>>> I  am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further
>>> information or clarification that you might require.
>>>
>>> And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has become
>>> a deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )...
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> All the best (and happy 2016 !),
>>>> Tamir
>>>>
>>>> On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a non
>>>>>> sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like the OECD
>>>>>> have to imply a normative endorsement of the status quo? Working
>>>>>> with the system that we've currently got can go hand in hand with
>>>>>> efforts to make the system as a whole better. Not to mention the
>>>>>> value of damage control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the
>>>>> engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial
>>>>> that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is
>>>>> really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
>>>>> multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
>>>>> society, even though we may be working with you per force. And
>>>>> also ask these governments how they brazenly run such a inter-gov
>>>>> policy system when they criticise any similar effort by UN as
>>>>> being distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and say pious
>>>>> things like that Internet is just not the kind of thing to be
>>>>> governed in an inter-gov manner. Are we ready to make such a
>>>>> statement at the Ministrial, while, ok, accepting your logic, not
>>>>> stopping to engage with OECD's policy processes, in a 'damage
>>>>> control' way, as you put it?
>>>>>
>>>>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011 when
>>>>> they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism proposal which
>>>>> was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's model as being
>>>>> inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably bad, representing
>>>>> the worst things that any human mind could ever come up with...
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on Digital
>>>>> Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee on
>>>>> computers, communication and information policy -- this happened
>>>>> much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of India's UN
>>>>> proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee was being
>>>>> formed, civil society tell OECD  that Internet cannot be governed
>>>>> in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming this new
>>>>> committee thy should make it genuinely multistakeholder.... No, no
>>>>> one spoke a word.... I am ready to be told that I am wrong. To
>>>>> repeat, not one word was said, much less a statement made.  it was
>>>>> not that civil society asked for it, and they were refused,
>>>>> whereby I may accept what you are saying... They never uttered a
>>>>> single word.... Such is its pusillanimity in front of the
>>>>> powerful, while the real job of civil society is to challenge the
>>>>> most powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in
>>>>> the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd voice
>>>>> recently spoke about whether OECD's process is multistakeholder
>>>>> enough, the general consensus was, leave that aside, lets focus on
>>>>> substantive issues!!
>>>>>
>>>>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage,
>>>>> suddenly no one can even think of any important enough non ICANN-y
>>>>> Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have spent years
>>>>> wondering whether any or enough of such  issues even exist. It is
>>>>> a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the OECD, and such
>>>>> policy issues roll out like no ones business - work in the
>>>>> Internet age, sharing economy, economics of data, algorithmic
>>>>> economy, policy implications of internet of things, big data and
>>>>> social profiling ........... The list is unending. Civil society
>>>>> itself actively keeps suggesting new policy areas and engaging
>>>>> with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums like
>>>>> this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet or
>>>>> digital policies related body, and all such areas can very well be
>>>>> dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted domains
>>>>> (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells OECD's
>>>>> Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous when OECD
>>>>> has about 50 other committees dealing with every possible area,
>>>>> where, by  that logic , specific issues of Internet impact could
>>>>> have been adequately dealt with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>>>> Lea
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>>     Grande Parm,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Dear Carlos,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Nice to hear from you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil
>>>>>>     society section that engages with OECD's Internet policy
>>>>>>     processes is really a pretty big part of the civil society
>>>>>>     groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my question may
>>>>>>     be taken just as being addressed to this quite big civil
>>>>>>     society section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory
>>>>>>     stand when they are at the OECD (the club of the rich
>>>>>>     countries) vis a vis when they are at the UN (a grouping of
>>>>>>     all countries) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     best regards, parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>     Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>>>     the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>>>     become my pet question...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>>>     all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>>>     stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>>>     OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>>>     Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>     on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>     Hi all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>>>     is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>>>     Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>>>     important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>>>     coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>>>     OECD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Best, Carol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/c2b80b5b/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Mon Feb  8 10:12:40 2016
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:12:40 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56B496F4.8090205@itforchange.net>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net> <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net> <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com> <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com> <56B496F4.8090205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org>

Hi Parminder, see inline -

> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:35 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Friday 05 February 2016 05:08 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>> Hi Parminder - sorry for the delay in getting back to you -
>> 
>> Admittedly, I don't have a very robust understanding of what's been going on in the OECD space, so I could be missing some crucial piece of the puzzle and appreciate the context you provided. But my comment is broader anyway. I disagree that you have to deploy a governance agenda in every advocacy effort you are a part of (which is how I understand what you're saying). If one thinks that making a short term gain on, say, cybersecurity, will be undermined by pushing a governance argument at that point, they may decide not to bring it up. I don't think this is contradictory at all, just shows that people have different priorities and strategies.
> 
> Thanks Lea
> 
> Please see my last email. It begins with "yes, Lea, that can be.." and then it asks for a different thing, "But does there exist any plan of the engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil society, even though we may be working with you per force. "
> 
> This response would go for your current email as well.

We have not been engaged in the OECD in the past, so I'm afraid I'm not able to answer this question. Perhaps better directed at groups who are engaged.

> I can agree to your point, but where is the answer to my question - by you, or any other, since very big chunk of civil society - most major CS groups here - are engaged with the OECD process ... Since I get no response, I take it that the CS groups so engaged have no such plan.

Same as above.
 
> 
> Now, I repeat, my problem is not with dealing with specific issues at times without necessarily always commenting on the larger governance framework. All of us, including my group and networks, often do that. We are very heavily focussed on specific policy issues, at least as much as any other global CS group, both at global and national levels.
> 
> But I am sure you can see that I am specifically pointing on the lack of symmetry between the attitude of these CS groups to UN processes and OECD processes. 
> 
> Just till two months back, all these groups, including yours, were at the UN, with respect to WSIS + 10 review... But why there, no 'such concession' was given to let the governance model be, and focus on substantive Internet policy issues, more and more of which are becoming increasingly urgent to resolve. The very same issues at OECD become important to engage with, but at WSIS we seem to suddenly be at a loss to even agree that there are important Internet related policy issues that need urgent focussed attention (the drama that unfolded with regard to the CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation on this account, for instance).. Why at the UN, the governance model becomes more important, but at OCED, we want to focus on substantive issues ? Why when CS contributions to the UN processes are so heavily loaded with comments and inputs on 'governance model' issue, we are hesitant to mention this aspect at the OECD?

I can't speak for others, and since we haven't been a part of previous OECD engagement efforts, it's hard to say whether and how much our potential approach at the OECD would have been similar to our approach in other processes. What I can say is that our engagement strategy in the recent WSIS Review was in large part formed as a response to the official framework for input issued by the UN. We were responding to a specific request for input on specific text which had a specific section on internet governance. Hence, an explicit position on governance as reflected in a number of submissions we worked on during the Review. This was also the case in our engagement in, for instance, NETmundial. On the other hand, during our engagement at the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 (which is arguably a more legally binding space than the OECD), we focused very little on governance frameworks etc. This was again in part mandated by the official Plenipot agenda and modalities for participation, but also our understanding of where the greatest gains could be made at the time (for instance, openness and transparency of the ITU itself was something we spent a lot of time working on). 
 
> When in fact it is so easy to do it by pointing to the hypocrisy of OECD nations who speaking with a double tongue depending on whether at the UN or the OCED. Why do we let go this excellent opportunity?

Agreement on what makes an 'excellent opportunity' as you put it, requires some common understanding of ultimate aims. Perhaps this is a point worth discussing further. Speaking for myself and GPD, I can tell you that we are not looking for opportunities to set up a new multilateral UN body to deal with internet issues, be it at the OECD, WGEC, or elsewhere. We will, however, be looking for opportunities to make existing bodies dealing with internet issues more open, inclusive, and transparent. With this objective in mind, I currently fail to see how 'pointing out the hypocrisy of OECD nations' would help achieve that and do not see it as a viable basis for strategic engagement. 
 
> 
> As for opportunities to do so, the forthcoming OECD ministerial on Internet policy issues is exactly the right kind. It is the first ministerial after the renamed and re-mandated, new Committee on Digital Economy Policy... Although as I mentioned in my email to Tamir, and referenced documents, it is only over 213-14 that the mandate was changed, and proposals invited to suggest inputs on working methods - and I understand none were given by this civil society (why did they not ask it to become 'fully stakeholder' as they ask UN to) . Interesting, in changing the mandate, language got added that this committee makes policies 'through multistakeholder processes', and this happened in 2013-14, in open view of the CS, after proposals for inputs into mandate framing were invited.... Why did the civil society groups use this excellent opportunity to give their version of 'what multistakeholder processes are' and insist on instituting such processes, or not use the term in the mandate?

If this was the case, it does sound like a missed opportunity! I agree that we should aim to be more consistent in our engagement efforts with these bodies. Often though, resources get in the way.
 
> 
> I think there are significant questions that the involved civil society cannot escape from answering, as they have been. And I  dont think an excuse of focussing on issues rather than governance really works here. 
>> 
>> I can see how if you take governance as the underlying problem,
> 
> No, I equally deal both with governance methods and framework, and specific issues. Even just one or the other, at times, as required and opportune. But that still keeps my above questions fully valid, and IMHO, necessary to answer for the OECD engaged civil society. 
> 
>> you could argue that any policy-specific efforts that ignore governance issues will in the end be unsustainable. But A) some may disagree that governance is the underlying problem,
> 
> Maybe .. I know some groups you are so focussed on specific issues and problems that they may be impatient about tackling governance issues, which may even be fine... What I cant understand is how for the 'same groups' , governance becomes the 'key' and prior issue when they are at the UN, even at the expense of urgent specific policy issues, but the orientation gets exactly reversed when at that club of rich, resourceful, countries, the OECD... That still     remains a question to answer.

I tried to explain how this worked in the case of GPD over the past couple of years, but others may have different answers.
 
> 
>> and B) even it it was, it doesn't follow that all efforts that don't put it at the forefront of their agendas are at odds with it. Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.
> 
> You said that my 'assumption of contradiction seem like a non sequitur'... Now that I have again explained what is the contradiction that I am focussing on -  not necessarily between working on specific policy issues versus engaging with governance framework questions, but flipping one's orientation between being at the UN and OECD - I hope you do not still consider it a non sequitur, and even may have another response to it.

I'm glad we agree that working on specific policy issues and working on governance is not binary. But I continue to fail to see a contradiction in the other dichotomy you've identified. Adapting positions in different bodies to reach some overarching goal can be a perfectly reasonable strategy. I use 'adapting' here on purpose, because I don't think the OECD situation you outline necessarily counts as 'flipping' orientations. 
 
> 
> thanks, parminder

Hope this at least answers some of your questions. I have just seen a follow up email from you which asks for call to action to engage in the new WGEC. As I mentioned above, we do not intend to push for a new ML Internet body, but I'd be more than happy to coalesce around strategies to push for greater inclusiveness, openness, and transparency of all relevant UN (or non-UN) institutions. Would this be something you'd be interested in working on?

Best,
Lea 
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Lea
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:59, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a non sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like the OECD have to imply a normative endorsement of the status quo? Working with the system that we've currently got can go hand in hand with efforts to make the system as a whole better. Not to mention the value of damage control.
>>> 
>>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil society, even though we may be working with you per force. And also ask these governments how they brazenly run such a inter-gov policy system when they criticise any similar effort by UN as being distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and say pious things like that Internet is just not the kind of thing to be governed in an inter-gov manner. Are we ready to make such a statement at the Ministrial, while, ok, accepting your logic, not stopping to engage with OECD's policy processes, in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?
>>> 
>>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011 when they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism proposal which was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's model as being inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably bad, representing the worst things that any human mind could ever come up with... 
>>> 
>>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on Digital Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee on computers, communication and information policy -- this happened much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of India's UN proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee was being formed, civil society tell OECD  that Internet cannot be governed in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming this new committee thy should make it genuinely multistakeholder.... No, no one spoke a word.... I am ready to be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one word was said, much less a statement made.  it was not that civil society asked for it, and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you are saying... They never uttered a single word.... Such is its pusillanimity in front of the powerful, while the real job of civil society is to challenge the most powerful. 
>>> 
>>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd voice recently spoke about whether OECD's process is multistakeholder enough, the general consensus was, leave that aside, lets focus on substantive issues!!
>>> 
>>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage, suddenly no one can even think of any important enough non ICANN-y Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have spent years wondering whether any or enough of such                issues even exist. It is a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the OECD, and such policy issues roll out like no ones business - work in the Internet age, sharing economy, economics of data, algorithmic economy, policy implications of internet of things, big data and social profiling ........... The list is unending. Civil society itself actively keeps suggesting new policy areas and engaging with them.
>>> 
>>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums like this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet or digital policies related body, and all such areas can very well be dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted domains (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells OECD's Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous when OECD has about 50 other committees dealing with every possible area, where, by  that logic , specific issues of Internet impact could have been adequately dealt with. 
>>> 
>>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>> Lea
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>> Grande Parm,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Carlos,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nice to hear from you!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil society section that engages with OECD's Internet policy processes is really a pretty big part of the civil society groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my question may be taken just as being addressed to this quite big civil society section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory stand when they are at the OECD (the club of the rich countries) vis a vis when they are at the UN (a grouping of all countries) .
>>>>> 
>>>>> best regards, parminder 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>> the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>> become my pet question...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>> all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>> stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>> OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>> Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>> on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>> is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>> Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>> important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>> coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>> OECD.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best, Carol
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>> https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>> https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>> https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/0f00a894/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Mon Feb  8 10:37:25 2016
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:37:25 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing, including
 zero rating
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
 <CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org>

For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you. For
others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.

On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
> 
> It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software community,
> grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
> 
> CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
> 
> Renata Avila
> 
> Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de <mailto:renataavila at jabber.ccc.de>
> - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
> 
> Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A
> B43D 89CA
> 
> Telephone +49 15252609522
> 
> @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
> 
> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
> Twitter: @webfoundation*
> 
> *
> *
> 
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> 
>     (apologies for cross posting)
> 
> 
>     http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
> 
>     shorter press release is at
> 
>     http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
> 
> 
>     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may set
>     the trend for developing countries...
> 
>     parminder
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org
Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in
Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Feb  1 11:24:27 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:24:27 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] NOTE - DO NOT OPEN link from Gene's email
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAc7pXOs-ApY6WresJbzDNUa5nezpPfiy-H8x029a9qLwg@mail.gmail.com>

Gene's email got compromised this morning. We have fixed it already.
But please, DO NOT open the link to the google doc.

If you have opened it already, take the following steps ASAP:

* Change your google password
* Make sure you have a phone number listed on your Google account
* Optionally, (but heavily recommended!) enable Two-factor
authentication, which will text you to confirm any suspicious logins.
* In addition, please check your filter settings. Sometimes fishers
change your settings to hide the emails they sent from your account.

Best and sorry for any inconvenience.

Carolina

-- 
Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

From ondouglas at gmail.com  Mon Feb  8 10:41:24 2016
From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:41:24 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
	<CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org>
Message-ID: <CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Mishi,
I think many will definitely use and learn from India's blueprint as this
war continues to rage on in developing countries.

Regards,

On 8 February 2016 at 18:37, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>
wrote:

> For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you. For
> others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
> how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.
>
> On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
> >
> > It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software community,
> > grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
> >
> > CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
> >
> > Renata Avila
> >
> > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de <mailto:renataavila at jabber.ccc.de>
> > - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
> >
> > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A
> > B43D 89CA
> >
> > Telephone +49 15252609522
> >
> > @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
> >
> > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
> > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
> > Twitter: @webfoundation*
> >
> > *
> > *
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     (apologies for cross posting)
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
> >
> >     shorter press release is at
> >
> >
> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
> >
> >
> >     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may set
> >     the trend for developing countries...
> >
> >     parminder
> >
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >.
> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
>
> --
> Warm Regards
> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
> Legal Director
> Software Freedom Law Center
> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
> www.softwarefreedom.org
> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>
>
> Executive Director
> SFLC.IN
> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
> www.sflc.in
> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
UG: +256 776 716 138
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/305ffa4f/attachment.htm>

From renata.avila at webfoundation.org  Mon Feb  8 10:54:48 2016
From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:54:48 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
	<CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org>
	<CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc304JTQ4SRyjSwfF77z_++B-CqDL7e218bLUdvonZes9w@mail.gmail.com>

If you sent me all info I can put together it on a wiki.

R
On 8 Feb 2016 16:41, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Mishi,
> I think many will definitely use and learn from India's blueprint as this
> war continues to rage on in developing countries.
>
> Regards,
>
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:37, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>
> wrote:
>
>> For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you. For
>> others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
>> how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.
>>
>> On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
>> >
>> > It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software community,
>> > grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
>> >
>> > CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
>> >
>> > Renata Avila
>> >
>> > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de <mailto:renataavila at jabber.ccc.de>
>> > - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
>> >
>> > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A
>> > B43D 89CA
>> >
>> > Telephone +49 15252609522
>> >
>> > @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
>> >
>> > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>> > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
>> > Twitter: @webfoundation*
>> >
>> > *
>> > *
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     (apologies for cross posting)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
>> >
>> >     shorter press release is at
>> >
>> >
>> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> >     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may set
>> >     the trend for developing countries...
>> >
>> >     parminder
>> >
>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Warm Regards
>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
>> Legal Director
>> Software Freedom Law Center
>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
>> www.softwarefreedom.org
>> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>>
>>
>> Executive Director
>> SFLC.IN
>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
>> www.sflc.in
>> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
> UG: +256 776 716 138
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/9a49a4ac/attachment.htm>

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Mon Feb  8 12:57:50 2016
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 20:57:50 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc304JTQ4SRyjSwfF77z_++B-CqDL7e218bLUdvonZes9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net>
	<CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org>
	<CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOa=Yc304JTQ4SRyjSwfF77z_++B-CqDL7e218bLUdvonZes9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwphJBDfzHZdxj7rEMg8H_KRNEU1t0jAgPAGJy+4r3xE7Q@mail.gmail.com>

If FB had gone through with their plans, India would have set precedence
across the world. FB would have paraded India as a shining example in
executing their strategy. I'm sure the direction the regulator took was the
best for the Internet. But more research is needed to identify best options
for connecting the unconnected.

Regards
On Feb 8, 2016 6:54 PM, "Renata Avila" <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
wrote:

> If you sent me all info I can put together it on a wiki.
>
> R
> On 8 Feb 2016 16:41, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Mishi,
>> I think many will definitely use and learn from India's blueprint as this
>> war continues to rage on in developing countries.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:37, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you. For
>>> others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
>>> how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.
>>>
>>> On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software
>>> community,
>>> > grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
>>> >
>>> > CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
>>> >
>>> > Renata Avila
>>> >
>>> > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de <mailto:renataavila at jabber.ccc.de>
>>> > - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
>>> >
>>> > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A
>>> > B43D 89CA
>>> >
>>> > Telephone +49 15252609522
>>> >
>>> > @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
>>> >
>>> > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>> > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
>>> > Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>> >
>>> > *
>>> > *
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     (apologies for cross posting)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
>>> >
>>> >     shorter press release is at
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may set
>>> >     the trend for developing countries...
>>> >
>>> >     parminder
>>> >
>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Warm Regards
>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
>>> Legal Director
>>> Software Freedom Law Center
>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
>>> www.softwarefreedom.org
>>> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>> SFLC.IN
>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
>>> www.sflc.in
>>> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
>> UG: +256 776 716 138
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/3bed151d/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Mon Feb  8 14:45:50 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:45:50 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwphJBDfzHZdxj7rEMg8H_KRNEU1t0jAgPAGJy+4r3xE7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net> <CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org> <CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc304JTQ4SRyjSwfF77z_++B-CqDL7e218bLUdvonZes9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwphJBDfzHZdxj7rEMg8H_KRNEU1t0jAgPAGJy+4r3xE7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMzp_p7fbLB51+vXa+MhBHbp_igmMJmOLORjnpKyy+EADw@mail.gmail.com>

I do not wish to ruin any hopes but I believe a bit more context is much
needed in this moment. Were there national telecom regulations against such
practices like Internet.org before in other countries? More importantly,
were these regulations revoked? I'm trying to find a bit more info but I
believe Colombia may have had a similar moment a while ago?


On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
wrote:

> If FB had gone through with their plans, India would have set precedence
> across the world. FB would have paraded India as a shining example in
> executing their strategy. I'm sure the direction the regulator took was the
> best for the Internet. But more research is needed to identify best options
> for connecting the unconnected.
>
> Regards
> On Feb 8, 2016 6:54 PM, "Renata Avila" <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
> wrote:
>
>> If you sent me all info I can put together it on a wiki.
>>
>> R
>> On 8 Feb 2016 16:41, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Mishi,
>>> I think many will definitely use and learn from India's blueprint as
>>> this war continues to rage on in developing countries.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:37, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you. For
>>>> others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
>>>> how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.
>>>>
>>>> On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software
>>>> community,
>>>> > grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
>>>> >
>>>> > CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
>>>> >
>>>> > Renata Avila
>>>> >
>>>> > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de <mailto:renataavila at jabber.ccc.de
>>>> >
>>>> > - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
>>>> >
>>>> > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A
>>>> > B43D 89CA
>>>> >
>>>> > Telephone +49 15252609522
>>>> >
>>>> > @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
>>>> >
>>>> > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>>> > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
>>>> > Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>> >
>>>> > *
>>>> > *
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >     (apologies for cross posting)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
>>>> >
>>>> >     shorter press release is at
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may
>>>> set
>>>> >     the trend for developing countries...
>>>> >
>>>> >     parminder
>>>> >
>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Warm Regards
>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
>>>> Legal Director
>>>> Software Freedom Law Center
>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
>>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org
>>>> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Executive Director
>>>> SFLC.IN
>>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
>>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
>>>> www.sflc.in
>>>> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
>>> UG: +256 776 716 138
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/c25d78db/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Mon Feb  8 15:12:53 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:12:53 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMzp_p7fbLB51+vXa+MhBHbp_igmMJmOLORjnpKyy+EADw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net> <CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org> <CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc304JTQ4SRyjSwfF77z_++B-CqDL7e218bLUdvonZes9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwphJBDfzHZdxj7rEMg8H_KRNEU1t0jAgPAGJy+4r3xE7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMokdMzp_p7fbLB51+vXa+MhBHbp_igmMJmOLORjnpKyy+EADw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMwHSg1eJ35oy-k6jVXgHkMK6bar_x0-22bJuSvcX50e=A@mail.gmail.com>

Correction, the info goes like this: Colombia, one of the countries who
adhered to Internet.org, was accused of substituting its own governmental
initiative to increase internet access in the country by Internet.org

https://r3d.mx/2015/12/15/facebook-da-internet-gratis-demasiado-bueno-para-ser-verdad/

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I do not wish to ruin any hopes but I believe a bit more context is much
> needed in this moment. Were there national telecom regulations against such
> practices like Internet.org before in other countries? More importantly,
> were these regulations revoked? I'm trying to find a bit more info but I
> believe Colombia may have had a similar moment a while ago?
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>
>> If FB had gone through with their plans, India would have set precedence
>> across the world. FB would have paraded India as a shining example in
>> executing their strategy. I'm sure the direction the regulator took was the
>> best for the Internet. But more research is needed to identify best options
>> for connecting the unconnected.
>>
>> Regards
>> On Feb 8, 2016 6:54 PM, "Renata Avila" <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you sent me all info I can put together it on a wiki.
>>>
>>> R
>>> On 8 Feb 2016 16:41, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Mishi,
>>>> I think many will definitely use and learn from India's blueprint as
>>>> this war continues to rage on in developing countries.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:37, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you. For
>>>>> others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
>>>>> how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software
>>>>> community,
>>>>> > grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Renata Avila
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de <mailto:
>>>>> renataavila at jabber.ccc.de>
>>>>> > - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A
>>>>> > B43D 89CA
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Telephone +49 15252609522
>>>>> >
>>>>> > @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>>>> > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
>>>>> > Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>> >
>>>>> > *
>>>>> > *
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <
>>>>> parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     (apologies for cross posting)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     shorter press release is at
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may
>>>>> set
>>>>> >     the trend for developing countries...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     parminder
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Warm Regards
>>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
>>>>> Legal Director
>>>>> Software Freedom Law Center
>>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
>>>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
>>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org
>>>>> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Executive Director
>>>>> SFLC.IN
>>>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
>>>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
>>>>> www.sflc.in
>>>>> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
>>>> UG: +256 776 716 138
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/e7f2e59c/attachment.htm>

From raman at accessnow.org  Mon Feb  8 16:05:31 2016
From: raman at accessnow.org (Raman Jit Singh Chima)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 02:35:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMwHSg1eJ35oy-k6jVXgHkMK6bar_x0-22bJuSvcX50e=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net> <CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org> <CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc304JTQ4SRyjSwfF77z_++B-CqDL7e218bLUdvonZes9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwphJBDfzHZdxj7rEMg8H_KRNEU1t0jAgPAGJy+4r3xE7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMokdMzp_p7fbLB51+vXa+MhBHbp_igmMJmOLORjnpKyy+EADw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMokdMwHSg1eJ35oy-k6jVXgHkMK6bar_x0-22bJuSvcX50e=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJmui6fKv-LSsGRF8CTgfoPONXQKj12xs6M195p9VqsMqdawjw@mail.gmail.com>

We would love information or any points on other existing zero rating
related regulatory standards that this community has seen in other
countries. From our current information, the regulations issued by the
Indian telecom regulator (TRAI) represent one set of clear dedicated
national telecom rules strongly prohibiting zero rating.

I also want to call out and thank the many groups [including many GNN
members!] who signed the joint academic institutions and civil society
letter
<http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201601180327042420938Access_Now_n_Ors.pdf>
that was filed with TRAI in January, which the Centre for Communication
Governance at National Law University coordinated. And I apologise to some
of the excellent people who offered their names later, but could not be
included since the filing had already been officially sent to TRAI. The
language from that filing made it directly into TRAI's official explanatory
brief
<http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf>
for these regulations published today. That specifically on how
international standards and India's own constitution mandated regulatory
action which advanced free expression, access to information, plurality and
diversity of media, as well as noting how a non-discrimination rule could
help advance net neutrality.

And just to flag that its still not over in India, as with many other
countries. More comprehensive binding net neutrality rules still need to be
passed (to more clearly set rules against throttling and prioritisation for
example), though this was a fantastic development and momentum is currently
with all the progressive actors working hard on this.

Raman.

On 9 February 2016 at 01:42, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Correction, the info goes like this: Colombia, one of the countries who
> adhered to Internet.org, was accused of substituting its own governmental
> initiative to increase internet access in the country by Internet.org
>
>
> https://r3d.mx/2015/12/15/facebook-da-internet-gratis-demasiado-bueno-para-ser-verdad/
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I do not wish to ruin any hopes but I believe a bit more context is much
>> needed in this moment. Were there national telecom regulations against such
>> practices like Internet.org before in other countries? More importantly,
>> were these regulations revoked? I'm trying to find a bit more info but I
>> believe Colombia may have had a similar moment a while ago?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If FB had gone through with their plans, India would have set precedence
>>> across the world. FB would have paraded India as a shining example in
>>> executing their strategy. I'm sure the direction the regulator took was the
>>> best for the Internet. But more research is needed to identify best options
>>> for connecting the unconnected.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> On Feb 8, 2016 6:54 PM, "Renata Avila" <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you sent me all info I can put together it on a wiki.
>>>>
>>>> R
>>>> On 8 Feb 2016 16:41, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Mishi,
>>>>> I think many will definitely use and learn from India's blueprint as
>>>>> this war continues to rage on in developing countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:37, Mishi Choudhary <
>>>>> mishi at softwarefreedom.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you.
>>>>>> For
>>>>>> others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
>>>>>> how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software
>>>>>> community,
>>>>>> > grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Renata Avila
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de <mailto:
>>>>>> renataavila at jabber.ccc.de>
>>>>>> > - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC
>>>>>> 981A
>>>>>> > B43D 89CA
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Telephone +49 15252609522
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>>>>> > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
>>>>>> > Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > *
>>>>>> > *
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder <
>>>>>> parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     (apologies for cross posting)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     shorter press release is at
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may
>>>>>> set
>>>>>> >     the trend for developing countries...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     parminder
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:
>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Warm Regards
>>>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
>>>>>> Legal Director
>>>>>> Software Freedom Law Center
>>>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
>>>>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
>>>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org
>>>>>> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Executive Director
>>>>>> SFLC.IN
>>>>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
>>>>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
>>>>>> www.sflc.in
>>>>>> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
>>>>> UG: +256 776 716 138
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Raman Jit Singh Chima*
Policy Director
Access Now | accessnow.org

Email: raman at accessnow.org
Skype: raman.chima
PGP ID: 0x2A186000

*Join the Access Now team - *we're hiring
<https://www.accessnow.org/content-type/jobs-and-internships/>!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160209/91e9888a/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Mon Feb  8 16:46:34 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:46:34 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: WSIS Forum 2016 -Official
 submission deadline 30 January
In-Reply-To: <CAPcSPKW-_2wpoN4PrTKLFX_LUKy0mUyXo66QcrgHuiYL7StYZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b505bd93bb964a06b6d55e2a8950f0af@TUCM02.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG>
 <CAJqNAHAR6Kz0iFP6ymF2Brje3gP7Luv2oweA1X+VamWa257zDA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPcSPKW-_2wpoN4PrTKLFX_LUKy0mUyXo66QcrgHuiYL7StYZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMwpbuaJsmOR+nuHpK8T=Y0Rg4utN6Vv7zsztP65KOqJjw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

Today is the last day of submission (extended deadline)
The form is now saving info even if you close the window and there's a
print form button.
I've submitted some answers and also mentioned Bestbits and IGC as
references in internet governance action efforts

Regards

Renata


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Baudouin Schombe <baudouin.schombe at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hello Anja,
>
> The form on the site only accepts one proposal. I thought it was possible
> to make a second proposal but unfortunately this is not feasible.
>
> 2016-01-28 15:01 GMT+01:00 Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The ITU is making some genuine efforts this year to try and improve the
>> value of the WSIS Forum, including through shaking up the format a bit.
>> They're very keen to hear the suggestions from civil society as well. Do
>> please consider making a contribution. It seems that even if it comes a day
>> or two late, it can still be considered.
>>
>> For more information, please see the message below.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>
>> Dear Sir/ Madam
>>
>>
>>
>> Wish you a happy new year! This is to draw your attention to the deadline
>> of the official submission to the WSIS FORUM 2016 Open Consultation process. The
>> deadline is 30th January 2016. The official submission form is available
>> here: http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/OCP/Submissions
>>
>>
>>
>> Your submission is very important for us as the Agenda and Programme is
>> built from the submissions received. This will also allow you to request
>> for workshops, exhibition spaces,  identify topics and provide suggestions
>> on the format.
>>
>>
>>
>> We look forward to your submission before the deadline.
>>
>>
>>
>> We remain at your disposal for any further information
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Gitanjali
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*
>
> *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC*
>
> *ICANN/AFRALO Member*
> *ISOC Member*
> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
> skype                 : b.schombe
> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160208/14651b8f/attachment.htm>

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Mon Feb  8 16:46:42 2016
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:46:42 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Indian regulator bans differential pricing,
 including zero rating
In-Reply-To: <CAJmui6fKv-LSsGRF8CTgfoPONXQKj12xs6M195p9VqsMqdawjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56B87925.9090100@itforchange.net> <CAOa=Yc2WZ07GmJ2uWLRxT_vxqQ7rochyg6numz6RO3wGyea4dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56B8B635.70801@softwarefreedom.org> <CAKWXZPau6ggPH6iX6ketFEXeWED9ov2EsWim4+mV1iYXV-DcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc304JTQ4SRyjSwfF77z_++B-CqDL7e218bLUdvonZes9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwphJBDfzHZdxj7rEMg8H_KRNEU1t0jAgPAGJy+4r3xE7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMokdMzp_p7fbLB51+vXa+MhBHbp_igmMJmOLORjnpKyy+EADw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMokdMwHSg1eJ35oy-k6jVXgHkMK6bar_x0-22bJuSvcX50e=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJmui6fKv-LSsGRF8CTgfoPONXQKj12xs6M195p9VqsMqdawjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwUjfL1g+BqiX7ntRo81J2Pa2dQVcbZG00wsk+BqCE32A@mail.gmail.com>

Note that India doesn't have the blindness we have in the US regarding
the nature of right of way oversight, so is much more capable of
putting in something that keeps facebook from establishing a model
that could replace the open Internet. This is also why the Indian
Constitution's guarantees apply here (they wouldn't if they were like
the US -- at least according to our incumbent telcos).  What happened
here was a strong assertion of the nature of the Indian telecom regime
as one that understands the rights of access that apply -- and doesn't
suppose, like other areas do, that you can actually have a workable
telecom regime without that.  India's domestic regime is now
distinguishing itself both internationally -- and as opposed to absurd
forms of privatization.


Seth

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima
<raman at accessnow.org> wrote:
> We would love information or any points on other existing zero rating
> related regulatory standards that this community has seen in other
> countries. From our current information, the regulations issued by the
> Indian telecom regulator (TRAI) represent one set of clear dedicated
> national telecom rules strongly prohibiting zero rating.
>
> I also want to call out and thank the many groups [including many GNN
> members!] who signed the joint academic institutions and civil society
> letter that was filed with TRAI in January, which the Centre for
> Communication Governance at National Law University coordinated. And I
> apologise to some of the excellent people who offered their names later, but
> could not be included since the filing had already been officially sent to
> TRAI. The language from that filing made it directly into TRAI's official
> explanatory brief for these regulations published today. That specifically
> on how international standards and India's own constitution mandated
> regulatory action which advanced free expression, access to information,
> plurality and diversity of media, as well as noting how a non-discrimination
> rule could help advance net neutrality.
>
> And just to flag that its still not over in India, as with many other
> countries. More comprehensive binding net neutrality rules still need to be
> passed (to more clearly set rules against throttling and prioritisation for
> example), though this was a fantastic development and momentum is currently
> with all the progressive actors working hard on this.
>
> Raman.
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 01:42, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Correction, the info goes like this: Colombia, one of the countries who
>> adhered to Internet.org, was accused of substituting its own governmental
>> initiative to increase internet access in the country by Internet.org
>>
>>
>> https://r3d.mx/2015/12/15/facebook-da-internet-gratis-demasiado-bueno-para-ser-verdad/
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I do not wish to ruin any hopes but I believe a bit more context is much
>>> needed in this moment. Were there national telecom regulations against such
>>> practices like Internet.org before in other countries? More importantly,
>>> were these regulations revoked? I'm trying to find a bit more info but I
>>> believe Colombia may have had a similar moment a while ago?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva
>>> <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If FB had gone through with their plans, India would have set precedence
>>>> across the world. FB would have paraded India as a shining example in
>>>> executing their strategy. I'm sure the direction the regulator took was the
>>>> best for the Internet. But more research is needed to identify best options
>>>> for connecting the unconnected.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2016 6:54 PM, "Renata Avila" <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you sent me all info I can put together it on a wiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> R
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 Feb 2016 16:41, "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Mishi,
>>>>>> I think many will definitely use and learn from India's blueprint as
>>>>>> this war continues to rage on in developing countries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:37, Mishi Choudhary
>>>>>> <mishi at softwarefreedom.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those of you who supported our work in India  a  big thank you.
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> others  who are fighting this battle in other countries, let us know
>>>>>>> how we can help. I can help provide all submissions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/08/2016 06:53 AM, Renata Avila wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > It was the amazing work of people like you, the free software
>>>>>>> > community,
>>>>>>> > grassroots, comedians. Bravo.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > CONGRATULATIONS Inline image 1
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Renata Avila
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de
>>>>>>> > <mailto:renataavila at jabber.ccc.de>
>>>>>>> > - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC
>>>>>>> > 981A
>>>>>>> > B43D 89CA
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Telephone +49 15252609522
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > @webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>>>>>> > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
>>>>>>> > Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > *
>>>>>>> > *
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, parminder
>>>>>>> > <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>>> > <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     (apologies for cross posting)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     shorter press release is at
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     Can be considered as a path breaking regulatory move, which may
>>>>>>> > set
>>>>>>> >     the trend for developing countries...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     parminder
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> > <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Warm Regards
>>>>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
>>>>>>> Legal Director
>>>>>>> Software Freedom Law Center
>>>>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
>>>>>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
>>>>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org
>>>>>>> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Executive Director
>>>>>>> SFLC.IN
>>>>>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
>>>>>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
>>>>>>> www.sflc.in
>>>>>>> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
>>>>>> UG: +256 776 716 138
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Raman Jit Singh Chima
> Policy Director
> Access Now | accessnow.org
>
> Email: raman at accessnow.org
> Skype: raman.chima
> PGP ID: 0x2A186000
>
> Join the Access Now team - we're hiring!
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in  Thu Feb 11 04:50:02 2016
From: puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in (Puneeth Nagaraj)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:20:02 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Reminder- Survey of Civil Society Participation in the
 WSIS Process
Message-ID: <CAGpHsu8dYcNiSD6RZ1mr4Z-Fi+BhHFDCEJ=a-dhh+GBiHxS_Kg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

*Please ignore this mail if you have already filled out the survey.
Apologies for cross posting.*

The Centre for Communication Governance and Global Partners Digital are
producing a report analysing civil society engagement with the WSIS Review
process.  A significant portion of this report will be informed by the
views of civil society representatives who were involved in the process. To
this end, we have prepared a short questionnaire that will help frame our
study.

This is to inform you that the deadline to fill out the survey (link below) has
been extended to *14th February, 2016*.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eO3Tl0Upme5B2g2WRHlNlRlhyQy9_TLk19dKCMeYXuI/viewform

We request you to take some time out to fill out the survey.

Thanks,
Puneeth
-- 
Puneeth Nagaraj | Senior Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi
| Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 956-091-4899 | Fax:
(+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org .  <http://goog_561379142/>
www.nludelhi.ac.in |  <https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160211/3db4cb9c/attachment.htm>

From aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in  Sat Feb 13 01:07:11 2016
From: aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in (Aarti Bhavana)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:37:11 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Accountability blog series
In-Reply-To: <CAF0Y8V3oU4KbVstfr1WappMu016x-sZLKJ1Jrt7YzMZVxuW-ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF0Y8V3oU4KbVstfr1WappMu016x-sZLKJ1Jrt7YzMZVxuW-ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF0Y8V2s=B9idypegot_pA6wcx4scppsJbA7zaMty0isQD=-Hg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The next post in our series on the recent developments in the ICANN
Accountability process can be found here
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-2/>.
This post examines Recommendation 6 (Human Rights) and Recommendation 12
(Work Stream 2).

As always, we welcome your inputs and comments.

Warm regards,
Aarti



Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi |
Sector-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org .
www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . *ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com
<http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com>*|

On 3 February 2016 at 12:01, Aarti Bhavana <aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) has started a blog series on
> the recent developments in the ICANN Accountability process that is crucial
> to the IANA Transition. As you may be aware, the Cross Community Working
> Group-Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has been working hard to address
> the concerns raised by the ICANN Board, Chartering Organisations and other
> public comments in response to the third draft proposal.
>
>
>
> Over the next few weeks as we head closer to ICANN 55, we shall dissect
> and discuss each of the 12 recommendations.You can read the first post
> here
> <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-1/>
> .
>
>
>
> As always, we welcome your inputs and comments.
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Aarti
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14,
> Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91)
> 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org
> <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> |
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160213/f834473c/attachment.htm>

From veni at veni.com  Mon Feb  1 11:31:18 2016
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:31:18 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] NOTE - DO NOT OPEN link from Gene's email
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc7pXOs-ApY6WresJbzDNUa5nezpPfiy-H8x029a9qLwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc7pXOs-ApY6WresJbzDNUa5nezpPfiy-H8x029a9qLwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56AF8856.7050502@veni.com>

Thanks, Carolina.
I'd like to add one correction to your steps.

Step 3 should not be optional, but mandatory! All people, using someone 
else email services (Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.) should by default use 
2-factor authentication. It could be through SMS (text message) to your 
phone, or through using the Google Authenticator, etc.

As for the filters - check if someone has not authorized a third party 
to be able to send addresses as if from you (I have helped a diplomat at 
the UN deal with exactly that kind of problem), and also they may 
forward all your incoming mail, and then delete it, so that you won't be 
able to see that something is wrong.



On 02/01/16 11:24, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> Gene's email got compromised this morning. We have fixed it already.
> But please, DO NOT open the link to the google doc.
>
> If you have opened it already, take the following steps ASAP:
>
> * Change your google password
> * Make sure you have a phone number listed on your Google account
> * Optionally, (but heavily recommended!) enable Two-factor
> authentication, which will text you to confirm any suspicious logins.
> * In addition, please check your filter settings. Sometimes fishers
> change your settings to hide the emails they sent from your account.
>
> Best and sorry for any inconvenience.
>
> Carolina
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-- 

Best,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com
https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski
https://twitter.com/veni

The opinions expressed above are those of the
author, not of any organizations, associated
with or related to him in any given way.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160201/dcb4c28b/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb 14 00:53:54 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:23:54 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] India's net neutrality decision
Message-ID: <56C01672.3040204@itforchange.net>

(Apologies for cross postings)


This is IT for Change's take on the Indian regulator's ground breaking
decision, as the main op-ed in Deccan Herald

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/528549/trais-historic-decision.html


  Trai's historic decision

Parminder Jeet Singh, February 13, 2016

*NET NEUTRALITY : As most public services go digital, it makes sense to
ensure access to them free of data charges, as a citizen's right.*

In its ruling on “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data
Services”, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has held
that data services over the Internet are a commodity business whereby
data cannot be discriminated on the basis of the content it carries. It
also asserted its regulatory control over data services, which would be
provided as a regulated public utility. 

This is a historic decision setting a high bar for maintaining complete
Net Neutrality, and thus sanctifying the Internet in the Indian law, as
a model of equal and non-discriminatory communication,
information-exchange and networking.

The Internet was always supposed to be so, but as it became the anchor
of society-wide digital transformations, and thus a carrier of untold
value and riches, it has been sought to be captured by big business in
an exclusive market paradigm. This decision safeguards the Internet as
being first an egalitarian social artifact, providing a social and
economic level playing field for all, before it is a market good. 

The original net neutrality concern was with the quality of
service-based discrimination, making for a tiered Internet. Strong
advocacy the world-over resulted in telcos losing this battle. By early
2015, it appeared evident that quality-based differentiation was simply
not going to pass public and regulatory muster. 

Quickly shifting their strategy, even the telcos begun to profess net
neutrality, but seeking such exceptions that could still enable revenues
from the content providers' side, which was their main objective. They
argued that price-based discrimination, including zero rating, did not
violate net neutrality because all content got the same quality of service. 

Taking a middle ground, regulators in the US and EU, and most other
countries, while ex ante outlawing quality-based discrimination, left
price-based discrimination to be subjected to ex post consideration, on
a case to case basis. 

Promoters of price-based discrimination claimed that such practices are
especially important for developing countries, helping their huge
unconnected population come online faster. Facebook’s grand campaign
promoting its zero-rated “Free Basics” service become the most visible
manifestation of this particular spin.

The most striking feature of Trai’s ruling is that it has upended this
logic. Noting that jurisdictions like the US and EU had left
differential pricing for ex post consideration, the TRAI held the case
of a developing country like India, with a huge unconnected population,
to be more (rather than less) appropriate for banning differential
pricing because such conditions especially allow the telcos to,
problematically, “shape the users' Internet experience”. 

Maintaining that “what cannot be done directly, cannot also be done
indirectly”, the ruling bans even models offering deferred free data
allowance for accessing specific services which can later be used for
accessing full Internet. 

The ruling is thus perhaps the most clear and absolute anywhere in the
world in fully protecting what it calls as “the unique architecture of
the Internet”, and allowing no loopholes. So strong is the economic
attraction of gate-keeping data services that the slightest loophole
would certainly be blasted into a gaping hole by big telcos and Net
businesses, disfiguring Internet’s egalitarian architecture. 

Rejecting the argument that Trai should act only ex post, on a case to
case basis, it went with the contrary view that “differential tariff for
data  services goes against the basic features of the Internet and it
needs to be restricted upfront on account of the far reaching
consequences that it is bound to have on the structure of the Internet
and the rights of stakeholders. Once such practices are allowed, it may
not be possible to quantify, measure or remedy the consequences in the
short to medium term.”

With TRAI clarifying that data services would remain an undifferentiated
commodity, telcos should now focus on extending the infrastructure and
improving overall quality of service rather than eying revenue potential
from the content providers' side. It gives both the data and content
businesses a much needed certainty. This is especially important for the
telcos in view of the forthcoming spectrum auction.

The regulator has said that it will now examine quality of service based
discrimination, the original net neutrality issue. However, having
disallowed price-based discrimination, it is unthinkable how a regulator
can allow quality-based discrimination, which is a more core net
neutrality violation. A similar short regulatory order on quality-based
discrimination, based on Trai’s existing powers, should firmly close the
matter. 

Some misgivings have been expressed about the exemption of closed
networks from the price discrimination ban. Can a telco develop its own
channels of content and applications, outside the public Internet,
available only to its own customers? 

The regulator insists that it will ensure that this exception is not
misused for specifically undermining the spirit of the ruling. This is
the ‘specialised services’ issue which other countries are also
considering, and would require further discussions. Special networks
like for tele-health services and motor-vehicle automation are cited as
possibly requiring a different treatment. 

Emergency situations are also exempted by the ruling: personal ones,
like health and personal safety related, and collective, like floods and
earthquakes. This leaves open a window for other possible public
interest exceptions, like essential public services, as designated by
the regulator. As most public services go digital, it makes sense to
ensure access to them free of data charges, as a citizen’s right.

The ruling is silent on the question raised in the regulator's
consultation about alternative ways to provide connectivity for the
currently excluded, which received a lot of public inputs. This is
understandable because this is a regulatory decision, on something
within the regulator's own power. 

Alternative ways for expanding connectivity has to be in the form of
TRAI's recommendations to the government, and taken up separately.
However, this is an important and urgent issue raised by the “Free
Basics” controversy, which should be addressed comprehensively and quickly. 

*/(The writer is with Bengaluru-based NGO, IT for Change)/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160214/43f08a5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6061 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160214/43f08a5e/attachment.gif>

From ephraim at accessnow.org  Tue Feb 16 13:57:08 2016
From: ephraim at accessnow.org (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:57:08 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Google, AccessNow, Facebook, CIVICUS, Internews Partner
 With PIN To Host Africa Internet Freedom Forum In Abuja, Nigeria
Message-ID: <56C37104.3020502@accessnow.org>

https://pinigeria.org/media-centre/blog/iff2016-google-accessnow-facebook-civicus-internews-partner-with-pin-to-host-internet-freedom-forum-in-abuja-nigeria/

-- 
--
Best Regards,

Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
Sub-Saharan Africa Policy Analyst
Access Now | accessnow.org

@ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1
Fingerprint: B0FA394AF73DEB7AA1FDC7360CFED26DE6BA8DC1


  #IFF2016: Google, AccessNow, Facebook, CIVICUS, Internews Partner With
  PIN To Host Internet Freedom Forum In Abuja, Nigeria

Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, with support from AccessNow, Google,
Facebook, Civicus and Internews, will host this year’s Internet Freedom
Forum in Abuja, on March 8 and 9, 2016. The theme of the pan-African
event that will host delegates from Cameroun, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt,
Gambia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe, among others, is
*/Rights are Rights, Online or Offline. /*

Internet Freedom Forum is an annual forum that creates a platform for
conversations on indices around Internet Freedom around the world.
Internet Freedom Forum 2016 (#IFF2016) focuses on indices around
Internet Freedom in African countries and the need to codify citizens’
right online. “The Digital Rights and Freedom Bill, which seeks to
codify online rights in Nigeria, will be reviewed at the forum and
presented as a model for adoption by other African countries,” according
to ‘Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director at Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (PIN).

The keynote for the event will be delivered by Nani Jansen, Legal
Director at Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI). She has acted in
freedom of expression cases before national and international courts,
and human rights tribunals, including the European Court of Human
Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the East African
Court of Justice, the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

#IFF2016

“Several experts, Internet Freedom advocates, journalists and government
officials from all across Africa have confirmed participation at the
event,” according to Adeboye Adegoke, Program Manager (ICT Policy) at
PIN. Some of the confirmed panelists at the event include Hon.
Chukwuemeka Ujam, Vice Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on
Telecommunications; Edet Ojo, Executive Director, Media Rights Agenda;
Titi Akinsanmi-Bolarinwa, Lead, Policy and Government Relations, Google;
Ebele, Okobi, Head of Public Policy, Africa, Facebook; Ephraim
Kenyanito, Sub-Saharan Africa Policy Analyst, AccessNow; Seun Onigbinde,
Co-founder, BudgIT; popular blogger, Japheth Omojuwa; award-winning
journalist, Tolu Ogunlesi; ‘Yemi Adamolekun, Executive Director, Enough
is Enough Nigeria; and ‘Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director, Paradigm
Initiative Nigeria.

The Nigerian Minister of Communications, National Security Adviser,
Director General of Department of State Security Service, and Executive
Vice-Chairman of the Nigeria Communications Commission have been invited
to provide government perspective to the conversation.

PIN’s Chief Operating Officer, Tope Ogundipe, urged interested
individuals and organizations to immediately register on the event’s
website, www.pinigeria.org/iff <http://www.pinigeria.org/iff>, “…because
participation at the event is strictly by invitation. Successful
applicants will be contacted by the #IFF2016 Secretariat at Paradigm
Initiative Nigeria, and application to attend will be treated on a
first-come, first-served basis until February 20, 2016”.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160216/eb47cf68/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2-FB-AD-1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 237404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160216/eb47cf68/attachment.png>

From raquino at gmail.com  Tue Feb 16 14:42:06 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:42:06 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Google, AccessNow, Facebook, CIVICUS, Internews
 Partner With PIN To Host Africa Internet Freedom Forum In Abuja, Nigeria
In-Reply-To: <56C37104.3020502@accessnow.org>
References: <56C37104.3020502@accessnow.org>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMxStyZz_ZMkkjrgkeiNMASgiBtpphjtDHfWOdP9boieVg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

Great to know about this event
I'll be in the one in Spain
https://internetfreedomfestival.org/

Hopefully some others on the list are coming


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito <
ephraim at accessnow.org> wrote:

>
> https://pinigeria.org/media-centre/blog/iff2016-google-accessnow-facebook-civicus-internews-partner-with-pin-to-host-internet-freedom-forum-in-abuja-nigeria/
>
> --
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
> Sub-Saharan Africa Policy Analyst
> Access Now | accessnow.org
>
> @ekenyanito
> PGP: E6BA8DC1
> Fingerprint: B0FA394AF73DEB7AA1FDC7360CFED26DE6BA8DC1
>
>
> #IFF2016: Google, AccessNow, Facebook, CIVICUS, Internews Partner With PIN
> To Host Internet Freedom Forum In Abuja, Nigeria
>
> Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, with support from AccessNow, Google,
> Facebook, Civicus and Internews, will host this year’s Internet Freedom
> Forum in Abuja, on March 8 and 9, 2016. The theme of the pan-African event
> that will host delegates from Cameroun, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gambia,
> Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe, among others, is *Rights
> are Rights, Online or Offline. *
>
> Internet Freedom Forum is an annual forum that creates a platform for
> conversations on indices around Internet Freedom around the world. Internet
> Freedom Forum 2016 (#IFF2016) focuses on indices around Internet Freedom in
> African countries and the need to codify citizens’ right online. “The
> Digital Rights and Freedom Bill, which seeks to codify online rights in
> Nigeria, will be reviewed at the forum and presented as a model for
> adoption by other African countries,” according to ‘Gbenga Sesan, Executive
> Director at Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (PIN).
>
> The keynote for the event will be delivered by Nani Jansen, Legal Director
> at Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI). She has acted in freedom of
> expression cases before national and international courts, and human rights
> tribunals, including the European Court of Human Rights, the African Court
> on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the East African Court of Justice, the UN
> Human Rights Committee, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the
> African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
>
> [image: #IFF2016]
>
> “Several experts, Internet Freedom advocates, journalists and government
> officials from all across Africa have confirmed participation at the
> event,” according to Adeboye Adegoke, Program Manager (ICT Policy) at PIN.
> Some of the confirmed panelists at the event include Hon. Chukwuemeka Ujam,
> Vice Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Telecommunications;
> Edet Ojo, Executive Director, Media Rights Agenda; Titi
> Akinsanmi-Bolarinwa, Lead, Policy and Government Relations, Google; Ebele,
> Okobi, Head of Public Policy, Africa, Facebook; Ephraim Kenyanito,
> Sub-Saharan Africa Policy Analyst, AccessNow; Seun Onigbinde, Co-founder,
> BudgIT; popular blogger, Japheth Omojuwa; award-winning journalist, Tolu
> Ogunlesi; ‘Yemi Adamolekun, Executive Director, Enough is Enough Nigeria;
> and ‘Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director, Paradigm Initiative Nigeria.
>
> The Nigerian Minister of Communications, National Security Adviser,
> Director General of Department of State Security Service, and Executive
> Vice-Chairman of the Nigeria Communications Commission have been invited to
> provide government perspective to the conversation.
>
> PIN’s Chief Operating Officer, Tope Ogundipe, urged interested individuals
> and organizations to immediately register on the event’s website,
> www.pinigeria.org/iff, “…because participation at the event is strictly
> by invitation. Successful applicants will be contacted by the #IFF2016
> Secretariat at Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, and application to attend will
> be treated on a first-come, first-served basis until February 20, 2016”.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160216/f18e171a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2-FB-AD-1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 237404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160216/f18e171a/attachment.png>

From sheetal at gp-digital.org  Wed Feb 17 07:57:29 2016
From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:57:29 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Global Cybersecurity Capacity Centre (GCSCC), University
 of Oxford, call for correspondents for Cybersecurity Capacity Portal
Message-ID: <CAK78muRbgWhW0NQqaX0-MZ=MxU0cAFnNF+ht6CSYD43iFo7Fpg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I am writing to share with you this opportunity just launched by the GCSCC
of the University of Oxford in case of interest. Please see the relevant
information, including contact details, below.

Best,
Sheetal.


The Global Cybersecurity Capacity Centre (GCSCC), University of Oxford,
invites interested individuals with expertise in cybersecurity capacity
building to become a correspondent for the Cybersecurity Capacity Portal:

*www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity-capacity*

This publically-accessible online platform is a key output of the GCSCC,
<http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity/> Oxford Martin School,
University of Oxford, and is created in partnership with Saïd Business
School.

The need for this *central source* of information for effective
cybersecurity capacity building was the result of consultation with a broad
range of stakeholders across the world. Since 2014 the Cybersecurity
Capacity Portal has been an online space for sharing experiences, best
practices, and new developments; and contains publically available
information and comment in a single place. It has become a one-stop-shop *for
expertise and knowledge on how, when and why to develop cybersecurity
capacity**. *It has been designed primarily to be of use for governments,
agencies, international and regional organisations, industry groups,
academics, NGOs and others with a role in cyber security capacity building.



As the first implementation phase has ended and our work has been well
received internationally, the GCSCC is now proceeding to the next stage of
development. They are therefore inviting a new network of correspondents
from various disciplines and regions to regularly contribute content which
relates to cybersecurity capacity building.  This will enhance the regional
representation, allow the presentation of new developments and trends more
rapidly, and ensure the portal stays a central point of reference for all
stakeholders *around the world.*



Correspondents are acknowledged as such on the portal and will be invited
to take part in the events and activities of the Centre. For more details,
please see below the Terms of Reference.



Please sent your profile and writing examples to *the Portal Manager,
Carolin Weisser, carolin.weisser at oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk
<carolin.weisser at oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk>, p*hone: +44(0)1865 287903

*For more information or questions, please don’t hesitate to get in
contact. *



*Cybersecurity Capacity Portal*

*Correspondents – Terms of Reference*



*Purpose*



*The purpose of a correspondent is to provide content to the *Cybersecurity
Capacity Portal
<https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity-capacity/explore/home>* and to
support its goal to be a central source for organisations and stakeholders
around the world to access expertise and knowledge on how, when and why to
develop capacity in cybersecurity, as well as current views on the nature
of the threats we face. *



*The role of a correspondent is to provide content to the portal on a
regular basis, to advise on the relevance and diversity of content, to help
ensure content is up-to-date, and to ensure that the full spectrum of cyber
capacity building (CCB) is represented. The input is based on their
individual expertise and may represent one or more dimension of cyber
capacity building, and/or may have a regional focus. *



*It is anticipated that these inputs will take a variety of forms,
including:*

*·      **identifying suitable content pieces for the portal from the field
of CCB (with a thematic and/or a regional focus) according to the portal’s
content policy;*

*·      **providing content in electronic form to the portal manager (link
or document), e.g. reports, studies, papers, articles or any other kind of
publication by third parties; or contributing papers, articles, blog posts,
comments or reports written by themselves or their organisation;*

*·      **promoting the portal during events, in their networks and via
their respective communication channels;*

*·      **providing information for the **GFCE inventory*
<http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity-capacity/explore/gfce>* which is a
mapping exercise of national, regional and global CCB activities in
partnership with the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise. Correspondents should
help to identify initiatives and encourage submissions to the inventory;*

*·      **supporting the portal manager in establishing the global network
of contributors by attracting bodies/individuals as “correspondents” for
the portal;*

*·      **putting about 2 hrs per week into the development of content.*

*Benefits*



*Correspondents will be able to actively shape the character of the portal
and their involvement will be acknowledged on the portal with their name,
title, and organisational affiliation. They have also the opportunity to
promote their own material and reach a broader audience through the global
CCB community. They will also be invited to events of the Centre and will
have access to its network of global experts in CCB.*



*Time Commitment*



*Correspondents will be expected to contribute regularly to the portal. As
it is fully understood that this is a voluntary contribution of time, we
will do our best to make requests convenient to correspondents as far as is
reasonably possible. Regular contributions are important to the success of
the Portal and the amount of contributions will be reviewed on an annual
basis in order to maintain the required energy for the Portal’s success. *



Carolin Weisser
Portal Manager

*Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre*
Oxford Martin School
University of Oxford
Old Indian Institute
34 Broad Street
Oxford OX1 3BD

Phone: +44(0)1865 287903

www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity

Visit our Cybersecurity Capacity Portal:
www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity-capacity
-- 
*Sheetal Kumar*
Programme Manager | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7739569514 <%2B44%20%280%297852%20535222>
  |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160217/12ea94c7/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb 17 15:30:00 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:30:00 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] videos available - The Frontiers of Cybersecurity Policy
 and Law
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdtSEexdMFJei1tjkgkU66H6DmfAWZhCOOrGCz8-TAWYg@mail.gmail.com>

The Frontiers of Cybersecurity Policy and Law
<https://www.strausscenter.org/cyberconference>

https://www.strausscenter.org/cyberconference

Over the course of two days in February 2016, the Strauss Center at the
University of Texas-Austin hosted a unique and timely conference focused on
the legal and policy dimensions of cybersecurity.

We are proud to have partnered with Christian Science Monitor's Passcode
<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode> as our media partner for this
event, with the American Journal of Criminal Law <http://ajclonline.org/> for
our February 5th sessions, and with the American Bar Association Standing
Committee on Law and National Security
<http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_services/law_national_security.html>
as
our partner for the teacher-training workshop component on February 6th.

The conference began on February 5th with a two-day symposium bringing
together technologists, government officials, privacy advocates, and
scholars to discuss four cutting-edge topics: the aftermath of the “going
dark” debate; the evolving regulatory environment for the rapidly-growing
security-research sector--including but not limited to export controls; the
prospects for private entities to engage in “active defense” of their
networks--including but not limited to “hackback”; and botnet takedowns.

The conference then continued on February 6th with a unique
faculty-training workshop co-sponsored by the American Bar Association.
Each year the ABA’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security
<http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_services/law_national_security.html>
sponsors
a training workshop focused on a particular topic relating to national
security. This year’s event focused on cybersecurity law and policy, with
sessions addressing, among other things, relevant aspects of federal
criminal law, investigative and intelligence law, regulatory law, and
international law.

Photos of this event can be accessed here
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/strauss-center/sets/72157664540740825/with/24575309729/>
.

Videos are available here
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWbCg5Rc5VaI38SOMVbPH-g>.

-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160217/8a3c6691/attachment.htm>

From gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in  Fri Feb 19 03:04:38 2016
From: gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in (Gangesh S. Varma)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:34:38 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Accountability blog series
Message-ID: <CAEKkfMusN0QVFO6rr72W98YfSKyNCSyREp-cg_vD6cFEF=tEOg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

[Apologies for cross posting]

The next post in our series on the ICANN Accountability process can be
found here
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-3/>.
This post briefly examines the development of Recommendation 4 (Seven
Community Powers).

We look forward to your inputs and feedback.

Best regards

Gangesh

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Aarti Bhavana <
aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The next post in our series on the recent developments in the ICANN
> Accountability process can be found here
> <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-2/>.
> This post examines Recommendation 6 (Human Rights) and Recommendation 12
> (Work Stream 2).
>
> As always, we welcome your inputs and comments.
>
> Warm regards,
> Aarti
>
>
>
> Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14,
> Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org .
> www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . *ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com
> <http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com>*|
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 12:01, Aarti Bhavana <aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) has started a blog series
>> on the recent developments in the ICANN Accountability process that is
>> crucial to the IANA Transition. As you may be aware, the Cross Community
>> Working Group-Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has been working hard to
>> address the concerns raised by the ICANN Board, Chartering Organisations
>> and other public comments in response to the third draft proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Over the next few weeks as we head closer to ICANN 55, we shall dissect
>> and discuss each of the 12 recommendations.You can read the first post
>> here
>> <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-1/>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> As always, we welcome your inputs and comments.
>>
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Aarti
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
>> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14,
>> Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91)
>> 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org
>> <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> |
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>


-- 

Gangesh Sreekumar Varma | Senior Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi
| Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 8447159123 | Fax:
(+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org
<http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi
<https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi> . @gangeshvarma
<https://twitter.com/gangeshvarma>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160219/c7436b5f/attachment.htm>

From sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 19 05:51:20 2016
From: sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com (Sadaf Khan)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:51:20 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Announcing: Pakistan Country IGF
Message-ID: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

We are very happy to announce that we are planning to initiate *Pakistan
Country Internet Governance Forum* this year. We hope to organize first
yearly event in September 2016.

Several civil society organizations including Media Matters for Democracy,
Bytes for All, Pakistan and Internet Policy Observatory of Pakistan (IPOP)
and other relevant stakeholders are collaborating for this purpose. PakIGF
is going to be a collaborative multi-stakeholder effort. While we already
have ICANN onboard, we are reaching out to several international
organizations, local universities, government authorities and other
institutions seeking collaborations and support to organize Pakistan
Country IGF. A Multi-stakehodler Advisory Group (MAG) will be announced by
the end of March 2016. The event website will soon be live on www.pakigf.pk.

We will be keeping everyone in the loop and welcome ideas and feedback from
other organisations who have arranged national IGFs in other countries to
make sure that we can arrange an event that successfully enriches the
internet governance policy debates in Pakistan.

With Regards,

*Sadaf Khan*

*Director Programs*

*Media Matters for Democracy *

mediamatters.pk | mediamatterspakistan.org|@mmfd_pak
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160219/edbda42a/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Fri Feb 19 06:23:50 2016
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:23:50 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Announcing: Pakistan Country IGF
In-Reply-To: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sadaf,

Congrats for this initiative and thank you for sharing. It's great to see
further proliferation of national IGFs across the world. I'm assuming this
is on the radar of the IGF Secretariat? It's important for these
initiatives to feed back into the global IGF and there are a number of IGF
MAG members have been actively involved in making this link more relevant
and robust. My personal experience in national IGFs is limited to the UK
example, but I know there are others on the MAG who would be more than
happy to provide guidance and advice. Let me know if you would like me to
forward this info to the MAG list.

Best and good luck!

*Lea Kaspar*

Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL

T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216

gp-digital.org

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sadaf Khan <sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> We are very happy to announce that we are planning to initiate *Pakistan
> Country Internet Governance Forum* this year. We hope to organize first
> yearly event in September 2016.
>
> Several civil society organizations including Media Matters for Democracy,
> Bytes for All, Pakistan and Internet Policy Observatory of Pakistan (IPOP)
> and other relevant stakeholders are collaborating for this purpose. PakIGF
> is going to be a collaborative multi-stakeholder effort. While we already
> have ICANN onboard, we are reaching out to several international
> organizations, local universities, government authorities and other
> institutions seeking collaborations and support to organize Pakistan
> Country IGF. A Multi-stakehodler Advisory Group (MAG) will be announced by
> the end of March 2016. The event website will soon be live on
> www.pakigf.pk.
>
> We will be keeping everyone in the loop and welcome ideas and feedback
> from other organisations who have arranged national IGFs in other countries
> to make sure that we can arrange an event that successfully enriches the
> internet governance policy debates in Pakistan.
>
> With Regards,
>
> *Sadaf Khan*
>
> *Director Programs*
>
> *Media Matters for Democracy *
>
> mediamatters.pk | mediamatterspakistan.org|@mmfd_pak
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160219/e49543de/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Fri Feb 19 06:56:30 2016
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:56:30 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Announcing: Pakistan Country IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPqXojLPVasyVH=m+32coPdn2-jmkZ843Ce7DGmzM8FX9jEumQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sadaf,
congratulations! Looking forward to reading more about it! As the German
IGF secretariat and also part of the secretariat of the European regional
initiative (EuroDIG) I also strongly encourage you to contact the IGF
secretariat. They are the entry point of the network of regional and
national initiatives and you can thus exchange questions, ideas and
experiences with new and older initiatives at a local and regional level.
Kind regards and congratulations once more,
Lorena

2016-02-19 12:23 GMT+01:00 Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>:

> Dear Sadaf,
>
> Congrats for this initiative and thank you for sharing. It's great to see
> further proliferation of national IGFs across the world. I'm assuming this
> is on the radar of the IGF Secretariat? It's important for these
> initiatives to feed back into the global IGF and there are a number of IGF
> MAG members have been actively involved in making this link more relevant
> and robust. My personal experience in national IGFs is limited to the UK
> example, but I know there are others on the MAG who would be more than
> happy to provide guidance and advice. Let me know if you would like me to
> forward this info to the MAG list.
>
> Best and good luck!
>
> *Lea Kaspar*
>
> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>
> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
>
> gp-digital.org
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sadaf Khan <sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We are very happy to announce that we are planning to initiate *Pakistan
>> Country Internet Governance Forum* this year. We hope to organize first
>> yearly event in September 2016.
>>
>> Several civil society organizations including Media Matters for
>> Democracy, Bytes for All, Pakistan and Internet Policy Observatory of
>> Pakistan (IPOP) and other relevant stakeholders are collaborating for this
>> purpose. PakIGF is going to be a collaborative multi-stakeholder effort.
>> While we already have ICANN onboard, we are reaching out to several
>> international organizations, local universities, government authorities and
>> other institutions seeking collaborations and support to organize Pakistan
>> Country IGF. A Multi-stakehodler Advisory Group (MAG) will be announced by
>> the end of March 2016. The event website will soon be live on
>> www.pakigf.pk.
>>
>> We will be keeping everyone in the loop and welcome ideas and feedback
>> from other organisations who have arranged national IGFs in other countries
>> to make sure that we can arrange an event that successfully enriches the
>> internet governance policy debates in Pakistan.
>>
>> With Regards,
>>
>> *Sadaf Khan*
>>
>> *Director Programs*
>>
>> *Media Matters for Democracy *
>>
>> mediamatters.pk | mediamatterspakistan.org|@mmfd_pak
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 

Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe

Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.

www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter
<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> ∙
 Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> ∙ Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> ∙ Youtube
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160219/15db016d/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Fri Feb 19 07:22:48 2016
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:22:48 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [dwIGF2015] Social Media Blockage in Uganda
In-Reply-To: <CAGM1dLRD6amEMQJzbgjRxAQrOKJ5_nwT4YnKqUmEuG623P3nqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGM1dLRD6amEMQJzbgjRxAQrOKJ5_nwT4YnKqUmEuG623P3nqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPqXoj+NY9VpTmPsxKwO8mrU+CNO4ZB7KAw4wPA9=Z9eg7ZPdA@mail.gmail.com>

fyi
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashnah Kalemera <ashnah at cipesa.org>
Date: 2016-02-18 20:54 GMT+01:00
Subject: [dwIGF2015] Social Media Blockage in Uganda
To: dwigf2015 at googlegroups.com


Hellos,

Incase the pearl of Africa hasn't made it through your social media stream,
see
http://www.cipesa.org/2016/02/ugandans-turn-to-proxies-vpn-in-face-of-social-media-shutdown/

Please share widely within your circles.

Regards,
Ashnah

-- 

*Ashnah Kalemera*Programmes Associate
Mobile: +256 (0) 773 325 435|Office: +256 (0) 414 289 502
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa
(CIPESA)*
Plot 156-158 Mutesa II Road, Ntinda | Kampala, Uganda
www.cipesa.org | @cipesaug <https://twitter.com/cipesaug> |
www.facebook.com/cipesaug

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"dwIGF2015" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to dwigf2015+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dwigf2015 at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dwigf2015/CAGM1dLRD6amEMQJzbgjRxAQrOKJ5_nwT4YnKqUmEuG623P3nqg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dwigf2015/CAGM1dLRD6amEMQJzbgjRxAQrOKJ5_nwT4YnKqUmEuG623P3nqg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



-- 

Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe

Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.

www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter
<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> ∙
 Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> ∙ Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> ∙ Youtube
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160219/9d174920/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Feb  1 11:33:14 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:33:14 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] NOTE - DO NOT OPEN link from Gene's email
In-Reply-To: <56AF8856.7050502@veni.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc7pXOs-ApY6WresJbzDNUa5nezpPfiy-H8x029a9qLwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56AF8856.7050502@veni.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAe0XhCpmFq==USjSaNppkshriupAxd5gRk98xf4W_jFRQ@mail.gmail.com>

I agree :-)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Carolina.
> I'd like to add one correction to your steps.
>
> Step 3 should not be optional, but mandatory! All people, using someone else
> email services (Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.) should by default use 2-factor
> authentication. It could be through SMS (text message) to your phone, or
> through using the Google Authenticator, etc.
>
> As for the filters - check if someone has not authorized a third party to be
> able to send addresses as if from you (I have helped a diplomat at the UN
> deal with exactly that kind of problem), and also they may forward all your
> incoming mail, and then delete it, so that you won't be able to see that
> something is wrong.
>
>
>
> On 02/01/16 11:24, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
> Gene's email got compromised this morning. We have fixed it already.
> But please, DO NOT open the link to the google doc.
>
> If you have opened it already, take the following steps ASAP:
>
> * Change your google password
> * Make sure you have a phone number listed on your Google account
> * Optionally, (but heavily recommended!) enable Two-factor
> authentication, which will text you to confirm any suspicious logins.
> * In addition, please check your filter settings. Sometimes fishers
> change your settings to hide the emails they sent from your account.
>
> Best and sorry for any inconvenience.
>
> Carolina
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
>
> Best,
> Veni Markovski
> http://www.veni.com
> https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski
> https://twitter.com/veni
>
> The opinions expressed above are those of the
> author, not of any organizations, associated
> with or related to him in any given way.



-- 

Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Fri Feb 19 08:33:49 2016
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:33:49 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Announcing: Pakistan Country IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56C719BD.3040001@bytesforall.pk>

Dear Lea and Lorena,

Precisely the plan. Since it is going to be the first country IGF for
Pakistan, we will need a lot of guidance and support. I wrote to Sheetal
separately on this but we hope to finalize the concept note of the event
early next week and then we will start sharing it with global MAG
members and other relevant partners for their input.

We are very excited about the possibilities and look forward to your
support.

Best wishes and regards

Shahzad



-- 
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981   Cell. +92 333 5236060

PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F




On 2/19/16 4:23 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Dear Sadaf,
>
> Congrats for this initiative and thank you for sharing. It's great to see
> further proliferation of national IGFs across the world. I'm assuming this
> is on the radar of the IGF Secretariat? It's important for these
> initiatives to feed back into the global IGF and there are a number of IGF
> MAG members have been actively involved in making this link more relevant
> and robust. My personal experience in national IGFs is limited to the UK
> example, but I know there are others on the MAG who would be more than
> happy to provide guidance and advice. Let me know if you would like me to
> forward this info to the MAG list.
>
> Best and good luck!
>
> *Lea Kaspar*
>
> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>
> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
>
> gp-digital.org
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sadaf Khan <sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We are very happy to announce that we are planning to initiate *Pakistan
>> Country Internet Governance Forum* this year. We hope to organize first
>> yearly event in September 2016.
>>
>> Several civil society organizations including Media Matters for Democracy,
>> Bytes for All, Pakistan and Internet Policy Observatory of Pakistan (IPOP)
>> and other relevant stakeholders are collaborating for this purpose. PakIGF
>> is going to be a collaborative multi-stakeholder effort. While we already
>> have ICANN onboard, we are reaching out to several international
>> organizations, local universities, government authorities and other
>> institutions seeking collaborations and support to organize Pakistan
>> Country IGF. A Multi-stakehodler Advisory Group (MAG) will be announced by
>> the end of March 2016. The event website will soon be live on
>> www.pakigf.pk.
>>
>> We will be keeping everyone in the loop and welcome ideas and feedback
>> from other organisations who have arranged national IGFs in other countries
>> to make sure that we can arrange an event that successfully enriches the
>> internet governance policy debates in Pakistan.
>>
>> With Regards,
>>
>> *Sadaf Khan*
>>
>> *Director Programs*
>>
>> *Media Matters for Democracy *
>>
>> mediamatters.pk | mediamatterspakistan.org|@mmfd_pak
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160219/ea9354fd/attachment.htm>

From director at ipop.org.pk  Fri Feb 19 10:15:56 2016
From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:15:56 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Our Press Release on FBI and Apple encryption
In-Reply-To: <agok2i6e8k9s0u3j70qm9wbc.1455783910642@email.android.com>
References: <agok2i6e8k9s0u3j70qm9wbc.1455783910642@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <BLU180-W57D77F0D46B0F8C71DF323FFA00@phx.gbl>

Apologies for cross posting
Our press release on FBI and Apple encryption case. 

http://ipop.org.pk/ipop-fully-supports-apple-in-encryption-case/

IPOP FULLY SUPPORTS APPLE IN ENCRYPTION CASEThe ongoing battle between law enforcement agencies and companies who champion the data scrambling technology took a new turn with U.S. Department of Justice attempting to compel Apple to build software that bypass non-encryption features of the iPhone in order to get at its currently encrypted contents. Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan supports Apple in this case and strongly opposes US government’s action.
“Almost every Government around the world have range of tactical tools such as stingray devices, wiretapping, geo-tracking and data-mining which can strengthen law enforcement and counter-terrorism if properly pursued”, said Arzak Khan, Director Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan. “Creating back doors to hack in to secure devices will not only undermine consumer confidence in technology but most importantly empower cyber criminals and totalitarian regimes”.
“The US Government should look at the transnational nature of the internet and its policy making given that most US internet giants like Apple, Google and others operate globally have to comply with local laws in places where they operate, this also includes countries having a very poor score card on human rights. We should refrain from adopting a policy that would allow such countries to exploit backdoors for silencing dissent” added, Arzak Khan.
“It is critical that both North and South work collectively for facing the online challenges in defeating the criminals but we also need to ensure that the internet remains a platform for freedom of expression and uncensored information otherwise, it will have a negative impact on social economic development ” said, Arzak Khan. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160219/0419655e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Feb 20 07:26:22 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:56:22 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjznN4XwgJHXtTMf+QZk5K8vcBoPn7XFy-xEox2wYvcEPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <56B496F4.8090205@itforchange.net>
 <2A505217-95A8-442D-A6D3-2976F90CAD92@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <56C85B6E.8030905@itforchange.net>

Lea

Some responses below.

On Monday 08 February 2016 08:42 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> SNIP
>
>     Please see my last email. It begins with "yes, Lea, that can be.."
>     and then it asks for a different thing, "But does there exist any
>     plan of the engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD
>     Ministerial that the model of Internet policy making that they
>     employ is really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one
>     and not multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to
>     civil society, even though we may be working with you per force. "
>
>     This response would go for your current email as well.
>
>
> We have not been engaged in the OECD in the past, so I'm afraid I'm
> not able to answer this question. Perhaps better directed at groups
> who are engaged.

Are you engaged in OECD now?. The key OECD ministerial on Internet
policy issues is right now being prepared for. Good time to either
explain why civil society doesnt make the same demands from OECD's
Internet making processes as it does from the UN or, get up and, make
these demands at the ministerial.  As for directing this to groups that
are already fully engaged with OECD, I dont seen them forthcoming at all.

But, then, let me speak about areas where your organisation Global
Partners has strongly engaged, perhaps more than any other group - the
WSIS plus 10 process. If indeed, as the last para of this email says,
your goal was basically to " push for greater inclusiveness, openness,
and transparency of all relevant UN (or non-UN) institutions", and not
like the US and its gov allies to simply minimise the whole process and
possibilities of its outcomes, why did your groups and many others not
support the G 77 position in the build up for the WSIS to have a full
original WSIS style +10 review, prepcoms and all, which would have
happened in Geneva... I wrote several times to IGC and BB lists about
this problematic stand of CS groups but you or anyone of your group
never engaged.

The original WSIS was not only the most multistakeholder of any UN
process ever, it was more MS than most actual policy processes anywhere,
at least in some key aspects. Any submission by CS would go to the
screen as part of the text under negotiation and it actually needed to
be struck down by negotiating parties, something I have seen nowhere
else. And there were great opportunities of CS self organising, nothing
like that have been seen since. 10 years hence, if we has got that
process, we could have even further improved inclusive-ness and
transparency standards. And there were official regional consultations
in the run up, and so on....... Why did your group and others not
support developing countries' demand to do full scale WSIS plus 10, when
this one issue was the reason for the stand off between developing
countries and developed ones for more than a year. and you know it...
And in all this while, CS, including your group, were doing everything
other than to support a full fledged WSIS plus 10 with its full fledged
prepcom process, which would certainly have had to follow the original
WSIS pattern of inclusiveness.... Why most groups, including yours,
remained close to the US and its allies' position on simply minimise the
WSIS, which then ended up  getting folded into a stump process at NY,
and immediately as it happened, the same people begun to lament its non
participativeness. Wasnt it always known that a UNGA linked NY based
process would be like that, and if we really wanted a fully open process
we should simply have supported developing countries in their demand for
a full WSIS +10 process rather than supporting US and its allies whose
main objective was simply to see through the WSIS +10 as a kind if
unavoidable evil with minimum damage and then get on to their own
Internet policy devices like at the OECD .   So, well, this issue is
also fully connected to the OECD issue, and the whole issue of how
actually global Internet policy, in both de jure and de facto ways, is
actually made has to be seen in one frame. It does not work to profess
ignorance about some parts, and that is it. GP runs probably the biggest
IG capacity building program for developing countries, so I think it is
good to know and engage with the whole integrated scene.

Even in the CS process for a statement for the WSIS + 10, did your group
not resist the idea for a summit meeting as the next stop after WSIS 10
completely in keeping with your stand in the run up to WSIS + 10. Apart
from the know precedent of original WSIS, whose participatory format
will be default for any full scale WSIS meeting, we know from other
global summits like for climate change, SDGs, etc, that such alone
afford a real large framework for CS participation and not NY based
stump meetings, which was in the current case a direct result of the
intransigent stand of US and its allies, supported fully by the tech
community, business and a large part of CS, including your group.

So, this position of pushing back UN based processes on Internet policy,
whether participative or not, and by active support or default having
developed/ rich countries only forums to make 'global' policy is an
integrated , large picture one, which is what I am critiquing.

>
>     snip
>
>
> I can't speak for others, and since we haven't been a part of previous
> OECD engagement efforts, it's hard to say whether and how much our
> potential approach at the OECD would have been similar to our approach
> in other processes. What I can say is that our engagement strategy in
> the recent WSIS Review was in large part formed as a response to the
> official framework for input issued by the UN. We were responding to a
> specific request for input on specific text which had a specific
> section on internet governance. Hence, an explicit position on
> governance as reflected in a number of submissions we worked on during
> the Review.

As I discuss above, your group and many others were of course actively
involved in the run up to the WSIS plus 10 as well. On specific text as
well, as I ask above, why your resistance to even in 5 or 10 years to
hold a full summit with full prepcoms etc??? And that when your group
works closely with developed country controlled global processes like
the London cyberspace process, Inter gov Coalition for Internet freedom,
and so on, and as I suspect from what you write you may also be
beginning to engage with OECD.

> This was also the case in our engagement in, for instance, NETmundial.
> On the other hand, during our engagement at the ITU Plenipotentiary in
> 2014 (which is arguably a more legally binding space than the OECD),
> we focused very little on governance frameworks etc. This was again in
> part mandated by the official Plenipot agenda and modalities for
> participation, but also our understanding of where the greatest gains
> could be made at the time (for instance, openness and transparency of
> the ITU itself was something we spent a lot of time working on). 
>  
>
>     When in fact it is so easy to do it by pointing to the hypocrisy
>     of OECD nations who speaking with a double tongue depending on
>     whether at the UN or the OCED. Why do we let go this excellent
>     opportunity?
>
>
> Agreement on what makes an 'excellent opportunity' as you put it,
> requires some common understanding of ultimate aims. Perhaps this is a
> point worth discussing further. Speaking for myself and GPD, I can
> tell you that we are not looking for opportunities to set up a new
> multilateral UN body to deal with internet issues, be it at the OECD,
> WGEC, or elsewhere.


Lea, we cannot keep speaking past each other like this.... *There is no
need to create a multilateral body on IG issues at the OECD, there
already is one* -- and that one is having its four yearly ministerial in
a few days!!! This is the one on which you refuse to proffer your views,
vis a vis the possibility of a similar body/ process in the UN. And of
course if you do not consider this OECD's Internet policy body as
multilateral (in inter-gov sense) you please tell me. That is the
original point of discussion.

> SNIP
> If this was the case, it does sound like a missed opportunity! I agree
> that we should aim to be more consistent in our engagement efforts
> with these bodies. Often though, resources get in the way.

But then the OECD ministerial  is just a few days away, and the involved
CS can take a stand now and issue a statement that we do not find the
OECD Internet policy body as multistakeholder, and they should change
it. We can draft a CS statement here. Do you agree? It would be strange
to rue an earlier one as a missed opportunity when we seem not ready to
take an opportunity that faces us right now!

>  
> snip
>
> Hope this at least answers some of your questions. I have just seen a
> follow up email from you which asks for call to action to engage in
> the new WGEC. As I mentioned above, we do not intend to push for a new
> ML Internet body,

I dont know whether it is a ML or MS body, my question is, are you ready
to propose an Internet policy body in the UN, with exactly the same
stakeholder participation design as of the current OCED's Internet
policy body (I leave it to you to call it MS or ML) ? If not, why not?

> but I'd be more than happy to coalesce around strategies to push for
> greater inclusiveness, openness, and transparency of all relevant UN
> (or non-UN) institutions. Would this be something you'd be interested
> in working on?

We have signed common statements with your organisation for
inclusiveness in WSIS process and in ITU, and every other place. And so
you know my answer, which is yes. If any other statement is being
proposed, you know we would sign it. I dont answer your question by
saying I havent looked into it enough, or we work more with other
forums, or that we focus on substantive rather than process, or.... This
when actually my org has at this time time zero IG funds, and I am the
only one who is able to give some time to IG, dividing that little time
between national issues and global - which is must more than can be said
about GPD which indeed focussed on the global stage and is remarkably
well provided.

And since I give precise answers to your proposals, pl give to mine as
well about OECD versus UN Internet policy processes, rather than saying
that you havent looked into this issue yet.

Basically, either we write a statement to forthcoming OECD ministerial
that their Internet policy process is ML and not MS, and we want it to
be MS, and it is particularly hypocritical for OECD countries to do this
when they at the UN says Internet policy making should be MS, and on
this ground obstruct any UN based policy development policies?

Or, we support my proposal to have an Internet policy body for the UN on
exactly the same model as one in the OECD, which in reality simply means
that we are kind of asking that a particular model of Internet policy
making, with global impact, which at present  includes only 35 or so
richest countries expands to allow all countries, rich or poor.

Which one are you, and others here, willing to do?

Thanks, parminder
>
> Best,
> Lea 
>
>>
>>     Best wishes,
>>     Lea
>>
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>     On 28 Jan 2016, at 14:59, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>>     Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a
>>>>     non sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like
>>>>     the OECD have to imply a normative endorsement of the status
>>>>     quo? Working with the system that we've currently got can go
>>>>     hand in hand with efforts to make the system as a whole better.
>>>>     Not to mention the value of damage control.
>>>
>>>     Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the
>>>     engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial
>>>     that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is
>>>     really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
>>>     multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
>>>     society, even though we may be working with you per force. And
>>>     also ask these governments how they brazenly run such a
>>>     inter-gov policy system when they criticise any similar effort
>>>     by UN as being distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and
>>>     say pious things like that Internet is just not the kind of
>>>     thing to be governed in an inter-gov manner. Are we ready to
>>>     make such a statement at the Ministrial, while, ok, accepting
>>>     your logic, not stopping to engage with OECD's policy processes,
>>>     in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?
>>>
>>>     All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011
>>>     when they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism
>>>     proposal which was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's
>>>     model as being inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably
>>>     bad, representing the worst things that any human mind could
>>>     ever come up with...
>>>
>>>     In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on
>>>     Digital Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee
>>>     on computers, communication and information policy -- this
>>>     happened much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of
>>>     India's UN proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee
>>>     was being formed, civil society tell OECD  that Internet cannot
>>>     be governed in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming
>>>     this new committee thy should make it genuinely
>>>     multistakeholder.... No, no one spoke a word.... I am ready to
>>>     be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one word was said, much
>>>     less a statement made.  it was not that civil society asked for
>>>     it, and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you are
>>>     saying... They never uttered a single word.... Such is its
>>>     pusillanimity in front of the powerful, while the real job of
>>>     civil society is to challenge the most powerful.
>>>
>>>     And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in
>>>     the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd
>>>     voice recently spoke about whether OECD's process is
>>>     multistakeholder enough, the general consensus was, leave that
>>>     aside, lets focus on substantive issues!!
>>>
>>>     When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage,
>>>     suddenly no one can even think of any important enough non
>>>     ICANN-y Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have
>>>     spent years wondering whether any or enough of such  issues even
>>>     exist. It is a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the
>>>     OECD, and such policy issues roll out like no ones business -
>>>     work in the Internet age, sharing economy, economics of data,
>>>     algorithmic economy, policy implications of internet of things,
>>>     big data and social profiling ........... The list is unending.
>>>     Civil society itself actively keeps suggesting new policy areas
>>>     and engaging with them.
>>>
>>>     People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums
>>>     like this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet
>>>     or digital policies related body, and all such areas can very
>>>     well be dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted
>>>     domains (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells
>>>     OECD's Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous
>>>     when OECD has about 50 other committees dealing with every
>>>     possible area, where, by  that logic , specific issues of
>>>     Internet impact could have been adequately dealt with.
>>>
>>>     Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>>
>>>     parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Warm wishes,
>>>>     Lea
>>>>
>>>>     On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>>>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>>     wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>         Grande Parm,
>>>>>
>>>>>         "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>>         Dear Carlos,
>>>>
>>>>         Nice to hear from you!
>>>>
>>>>         I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil
>>>>         society section that engages with OECD's Internet policy
>>>>         processes is really a pretty big part of the civil society
>>>>         groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my question may
>>>>         be taken just as being addressed to this quite big civil
>>>>         society section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory
>>>>         stand when they are at the OECD (the club of the rich
>>>>         countries) vis a vis when they are at the UN (a grouping of
>>>>         all countries) .
>>>>
>>>>         best regards, parminder
>>>>
>>>>>         fraternal regards
>>>>>
>>>>>         --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>         On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>         Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>         the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>         become my pet question...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>         all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>         stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>         OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>         Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>         on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>         Hi all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>         is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>         Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>         important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>         coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>         OECD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Best, Carol
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>         https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>         https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>         https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>         To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>              http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160220/f24c0438/attachment.htm>

From raquelrenno at gmail.com  Sat Feb 20 11:23:36 2016
From: raquelrenno at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Raquel_Renn=C3=B3?=)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:23:36 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [icie] Special Issue Ethics for Indian Cybertariats
In-Reply-To: <D04BD4D1-0B3A-4FA1-AE0B-7B0C9DC1C770@icloud.com>
References: <56C6D25E.6040507@capurro.de>
	<50709.10.5.3.172.1455937592.squirrel@mail.annauniv.edu>
	<D04BD4D1-0B3A-4FA1-AE0B-7B0C9DC1C770@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <CAN8ADkcTY+kFFzKzZdFaZMfri2F=KWSpm7NiY8vaDWw6cuOwQw@mail.gmail.com>

On 20 Feb 2016, at 2:06 pm, T V Gopal <gopal at annauniv.edu> wrote:

Dear Prof. Rafael Capurro,

Many thanks for giving us an opportunity to work on the Special Issue
"Ethics for Indian Cybertariats".

This is a challenging theme. Please interpret the term Indian in the theme
in the context of globalization.

On behalf of the Guest Editors, I request the members of ICIE to provide
wide publicity for the CFP.

Gopal T V
0 9840121302
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. T V Gopal
Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
College of Engineering
Anna University
Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
     (Res) 24454753
Home Page : http://www.annauniv.edu/staff/gopal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Fri, February 19, 2016 1:59 pm, Rafael Capurro wrote:
Dear all,

please spread the news:

CfP Special Issue Ethics for Indian Cybertariats
Guest Editors : T V Gopal, Anthony Lobo, Pavan Duggal
http://www.i-r-i-e.net/call_for_papers.htm

best

Rafael


--
Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics
(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)
Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for
Information Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University
of Pretoria, South Africa.
Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE)
(http://icie.zkm.de)
Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE)
(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: rafael at capurro.de
Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de








-- 
Raquel Rennó
www.raquelrenno.net
http://www2.ufrb.edu.br/paec/
<http://www.zzzinc.net>https://outrastribos.wordpress.com/
-------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160220/3b6396fc/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Sat Feb 20 15:52:40 2016
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:52:40 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Announcing: Pakistan Country IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56C8D218.4020502@softwarefreedom.org>

Congratulations!  Please let us know how can we help.

P.S. You are way ahead of us in your neighborhood who have a MAG but no
Indian IGF.

On 02/19/2016 06:23 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Dear Sadaf, 
> 
> Congrats for this initiative and thank you for sharing. It's great to
> see further proliferation of national IGFs across the world. I'm
> assuming this is on the radar of the IGF Secretariat? It's important for
> these initiatives to feed back into the global IGF and there are a
> number of IGF MAG members have been actively involved in making this
> link more relevant and robust. My personal experience in national IGFs
> is limited to the UK example, but I know there are others on the MAG who
> would be more than happy to provide guidance and advice. Let me know if
> you would like me to forward this info to the MAG list.
> 
> Best and good luck!
> 
> *Lea Kaspar*
> 
> Head of Programmes|GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> 
> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
> 
> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
> 
> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sadaf Khan <sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com
> <mailto:sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear All, 
> 
>     We are very happy to announce that we are planning to initiate
>     *Pakistan Country Internet Governance Forum* this year. We hope to
>     organize first yearly event in September 2016. 
> 
>     Several civil society organizations including Media Matters for
>     Democracy, Bytes for All, Pakistan and Internet Policy Observatory
>     of Pakistan (IPOP) and other relevant stakeholders are collaborating
>     for this purpose. PakIGF is going to be a collaborative
>     multi-stakeholder effort. While we already have ICANN onboard, we
>     are reaching out to several international organizations, local
>     universities, government authorities and other institutions seeking
>     collaborations and support to organize Pakistan Country IGF. A
>     Multi-stakehodler Advisory Group (MAG) will be announced by the end
>     of March 2016. The event website will soon be live on www.pakigf.pk
>     <http://www.pakigf.pk/>.
> 
>     We will be keeping everyone in the loop and welcome ideas and
>     feedback from other organisations who have arranged national IGFs in
>     other countries to make sure that we can arrange an event that
>     successfully enriches the internet governance policy debates in
>     Pakistan.
> 
>     With Regards,
> 
>     *Sadaf Khan*
> 
>     *Director Programs*
> 
>     *Media Matters for Democracy *
> 
>     mediamatters.pk <http://mediamatters.pk> | mediamatterspakistan.org
>     <http://mediamatterspakistan.org>|@mmfd_pak
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org
Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in
Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in


From tisrael at cippic.ca  Sat Feb 20 17:18:49 2016
From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:18:49 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Fwd: Re: OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56B8ADEE.5010102@itforchange.net>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net> <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net> <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com> <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca> <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net> <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca> <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net> <56B8ADEE.5010102@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <56C8E649.9020307@cippic.ca>

Hi Parminder,

Thanks again for the detailed reply and again I apologize for the
delayed response. I'll respond to some of what you say in line, but I
have not been following WSIS10+, so will leave those elements for others
to address..

On 2/8/2016 10:02 AM, parminder wrote:
> The first point in my response was about the nature of UN based
> proposals for Internet related policy making, which I insist remain on
> the table. we especially cannot dodge them in view of the new UN WG on
> enhanced cooperation which will begin working later this year. In that
> regard my question is:
>
> What is the response of civil society groups here to the proposal to
> institute an Internet policy development model in the UN which is
> exactly, repeat, exactly, the same as the CDEP process in the OECD
> (whereby the only difference will be that instead of the 34 richest
> countries making policy, there will the full list of 190 or so, or a
> rotating smaller representative group of them, plus a clear
> institutionalised linkage to the IGF)?
>
> The second, complimentary question is, as follows:
>
> The only logical and defensible reason for not accepting the above
> proposal that I can think of is that such a proposal about does not
> represent a mutistakeholder model of Internet policy making, and the
> major civil society groups and persons here will only accept a
> multistakeholder model of policy making (whatever it is).
>
> Fair enough. In that case, is there a proposal to make this case to
> the forthcoming OECD ministerial organised around the work of its
> Committee on Digital Economy Policy (which is OECD's Internet policy
> making organ)? I mean to at least clearly say, in a specific
> statement,  to the ministerial that we do not accept their model of
> Internet policy making, since it is not multistakeholder (and also
> offer a multistakeholder option, which if you refuse their model, of
> course they'd ask for). This is the first ministerial after the CDEP
> was formed with a re-adopted mandate, which for the first time claims
> that it develops policy through a 'multistakeholder process'.  Since,
> the civil society groups failed to raise this issue when the CDEP was
> formed 2 years back and they were asked for their inputs, would they
> want to now correct their mistake, and take this issue up in the
> forthcoming public meeting of the OECD ministrial?
> If not, why so? Where do their multistakeholderist energies, which are
> to be seen to be believed when the arena is the UN, disappear in front
> of the comity of the richest countries of the world ? Whom they join
> in the first place in the UN arena to sing multistakeholderist paeans.
> Why not expose this extreme hypocrisy of theirs, which is so easily
> done, they would not have words to come back with, which, excuse my
> slipping into cynicism, I btw i suspect is why most groups dont do it.
> we cant do such things to our friends, right!
CDEP has been around for a very very long time, it was merely renamed
from ICCP a few years back, without any real change in orientation or
scope of operation. There have been several ministerials over the years,
and in some of these, governance issues were front and center. For
example, in the Seoul Ministerial (which has not even reached its 10
year milestone yet, to put things in perspective) governance was the
main topic of discussion and where civil society's standing and role at
CDEP (then ICCP) was formalized, providing an official and independent
channel for civil society input into OECD internet-related
policy-making. This was a big step, and one that was taken not too long
ago. Governance is not a central issue in each and every ministerial,
nor should it be.

In addition, in my own experience, governance issues have come up at
CDEP many times, but mostly on a case by case basis where the process
has broken down one way or another. This has led to some improvements,
eg as I noted in my previous email, sometimes the civil society
stakeholder group can formulate its differing views regarding an OECD
policy paper, and these will be incorporated into the formal release of
the document. Given the types of things that come out of CDEP, this is a
useful and effective remedy. Those types of tweaks have been effective,
and the OECD has (again in my experience) been generally responsive,
which has likely further forestalled calls for broad-ranged changes.

I should note briefly that in terms of civil society / stakeholder
engagement, at least, the civil society presence at the OECD is global.
You, yourself, are a member of the stakeholder group, let's not forget.
Finally, while I'm not sure there is an immediate need for tectonic
shifts in the CDEP's stakeholder model as it's evolved in the past few
years since the seoul ministerial, I would still not recommend the model
for any body that has a treaty-coordination role.
>
> In the CS advisory group to the OECD's CDEP, one person did propose
> that it should seek greater multistakeholderism in CDEP's policy
> making processes, but this proposal was made light of by others,
> seeking focus on substantive issues instead!! Why such shyness with
> the OECD, when the same groups are never short on reprimanding UN
> bodies - extant or proposed, on this matter?
I'm not very involved in this ministerial, but I have seen one proposal
to have a panel on governance. It came late in the day, so I don't know
if it'll make the cut, but the point is this one panel would not be
enough to dramatically fix any deficiencies in the OECD process. I would
think the proposal for dramatic reform you mention would have to be
carefully formulated ahead of time, and this groundwork has not been
done. Perhaps it's because the OECD has tended to be fairly responsive
to multi stakeholder concerns when these come up, as noted above. These
case by case improvements to the stakeholder model have proven an
efficient and effective way of advancing matters, so the impetus for
dramatic change so soon on the heels of the seoul ministerial has been low.
>
> The job of civil society is to speak up to the most powerful, not be
> in convenient alliances with them.
>
> Also, CoE's Internet policy mechanism is "right now" seeking civil
> society input into their IG strategy.... It makes policy frameworks in
> a similar manner as OCED (but apparently with less formal stakeholder
> systems). Why not tell them, this is what we think is multistakholder
> policy making, and we would expect CoE to adopt it. That is our input,
> or at least one of the inputs, to their IG strategy (It is CoE's
> treaty on cyber crime that is often pushed post facto as the 'gold
> standards' for developing countries to accede to. A cursory search
> throws up another one on 'automatic processing of individual data'.
> But somehow policy, even hard law based, processes of the 'good
> countries' done in fully multi-lateral ways seem to completely fall
> off civil society's radar.)Â  )
CoE is not the same as OECD's CDEP. For one thing, in spite of  your
repeated claims, CDEP does not have any sort of treaty coordination role
(a role, I note, that you would retain for your UN coordination body).
Very few CDEP outputs (a handful over the course of decades) are even in
a format that would be conducive to coordinating a treaty, most are
policy-like reports, raw data analysis or maybe at most general policy
statements. I cannot think of one CDEP output that has in fact become a
treaty. The closest might be the Privacy Guidelines, which have a format
that might be conducive to a treaty-like instrument. These are an
exception to the rule, though, and moreover they have not been
implemented by some OECD countries (let alone formed the basis for an
international treaty). In this regard, it largely replicates what ITU-D
already does which is create non-binding policy reports and data analysis.

CoE by contrast is, as you say, a treaty coordinating body. However,
while contributing to the international dialogue on Internet issues
(like any other regional or national body), CoE is somewhat contiguous
with the EU system and, moreover, has much stronger democratic
mechanisms and safeguards than are available at the UN, including a
non-partisan parliamentary system, judicial system and binding
over-arching human rights instrument. Again, there are no comparators at
the UN level that could mitigate the harms that might result from a
purely state-led Internet treaty-coordination body, so this, too, would
not work as a model. (not to belittle the UN, just to say that you would
want a stronger, truly stakeholder makeup to counteract this lack). That
being said, I'm not very active at CoE, so I would not want to speak to
the efficacy of that model and whether it does or does not need to
improve in terms of its multi-stakeholder formats.

Best,
Tamir
>
> It is time for those who occupy the space of the global civil society
> working in the IG area to engage with these uncomfortable questions.
> They would not be able to retain global legitimacy if they do not...
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Sunday 07 February 2016 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>> Dear Tamir
>>
>> Thanks for your response, which is the most well argued and
>> comprehensive one that I have ever received for this question that I
>> have asked several times in the last many years. So thanks again.
>>
>> There is another important aspect of your email that I would like to
>> respond to but let me first do so for
>>
>>     "Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing
>>     like this, or that these elements could have been stripped from
>>     the CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed
>>     at a later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these
>>     command and control elements seemed as integral if not primary
>>     functions. Most, if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP
>>     proposal related to this particular aspect of the proposal, which
>>     is the fact that it would bring about multi-lateral control as
>>     opposed to simply creating yet one more policy-making venue."
>>
>> I will come to IT for Change part the last bec it is the least
>> important thing here.
>>
>> The "command and control" aspect of CIRP that you point to chiefly is
>> about the ICANN oversight part (the treaty facilitating aspect being
>> common to OECD and CoE committees and thus is symmetric ). Please
>> note that the CIRP proposal clearly says that it has picked CIRP's
>> mandate items from the institutional models suggested by the Working
>> Group on IG's report. This report clearly says that the oversight
>> role is the role currently undertaken by US Dept of Commerce.
>> Obviously, therefore the CIRP proposed only to take up that role
>> which is currently played by the US Dept of commerce.
>>
>> The question then that I have for you; how is ICANN working under the
>> oversight of US government not a 'command and control' structure, and
>> I hear it always referred to as a multistakeholder structure, but if
>> the same role was played together by all countries it became a
>> 'command and control' structure?  (The current IANA transition
>> process not being relevant here bec it was not envisaged at the time
>> that CIRP was proposed and then roundly criticised).
>>
>> Second part: "these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
>> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
>> stage (perhaps too late?)" (from your email below.
>>
>> I have said this before, the proposal itself said, we are open to
>> discussing, the Indian gov rep at Nairobi IGF, immediately after the
>> proposal as made, said, we are open to discuss and change it, and at
>> the next CSTD meeting, India again said we are open to change it and
>> invited ideas. No response, other than, the whole thing should simply
>> be abandoned. Most importantly, India actually separated the
>> oversight part from that for 'other public policy making' in its
>> submission to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation whose
>> precise mandate was to come up with an appropriate global Internet
>> governance related institutional architecture, esp for 'public policy
>> making' plus ICANN oversight. Civil society members were in there in
>> that WG, and those outside made written submissions, over two rounds,
>> but any proposal to have an OECD kind of Internet related public
>> policy mechanism remained fully ignored, and considered as
>> multilateralist and therefore evil...
>>
>> So, I cannot see how you and others decide that it "was too late"...
>> The right to make the rules of game, and what is the right time, what
>> is the right way to propose a thing, and so on, is one of the biggest
>> forms of hegemonic power.... I dont accept it. The proposal still
>> stands today, you, and others,  need to comment on it as it is being
>> proposed to you, as I am proposing to you, and not take the cover of,
>> that was the wrong time, and the wrong way, and so on...
>>
>> As I said, the WG on enhanced cooperation is being reconstituted, you
>> and others here are global players in the IG space by choice and
>> profession; my question to you all is, what is your response to my
>> proposal (forget others) to develop a Internet related public policy
>> development mechanism inside the UN "on the exact model" as it
>> happens in the OECD. I will await yours and other people's response.
>> And if I do not get it, keep asking this question. This is about the
>> denial of the right of self determination and right of democratic
>> participation of the huge majority of the world's population (non
>> OECD countries). A right, which in view is, even prior to all other
>> rights, a right which determines what rights are...
>>
>> Lastly, your comment on ITfC's positions: yes, we have always asked
>> for an OECD like Internet related policy mechanism in the UN, in the
>> exact model of how it works in the OECD, where it gets called as a
>> multistakeholder model. For ICANN oversight we has for a different
>> kind of model. Not only ITfC but JNC (Just Net Coalition) has made
>> similar demands (see our submissions to the the NetMundial
>> Conference)... But both IT for Change and JNC get branded as pro -
>> multilateralism and much of the dominant civil society here by
>> contrast as pro multi-stakeholderism, while, as should be obvious
>> from this discussion, the *real and only difference* is that we
>> refuse to work with US- and OCED-centric 'global' policy and IG
>> models and ask instead to have all countries equally involved, while
>> preserving the same amount of multistakeholder participation as it
>> exists in extant models today. (I say this with full authority, and
>> am ready to stand by it.) But the fact that the mentioned labels have
>> been so successfully affixed and sustained speaks of the power of
>> hegemonic discourse, even within the so called civil society... I
>> think we need to be doing better than that. We need to be able to
>> discuss things opening, and provide answers to the questions that get
>> asked about our positions. If even civil society does not do it, who
>> would.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Sunday 07 February 2016 05:40 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>
>>> I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your
>>> detailed answer.
>>>
>>> I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD
>>> policy-making process and particularly on how it manages
>>> multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary
>>> impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way to
>>> improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often raised
>>> on a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements over
>>> time, at least in my opinion).
>>>
>>> I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents
>>> or activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my
>>> recollection the opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements
>>> of the proposal that /did/ envision this type of binding action,
>>> which is far different from what the OECD does.
>>>
>>> Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented in
>>> the UN:
>>>
>>>   * Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and
>>>     operational functioning of the Internet, including global
>>>     standards setting;
>>>   * Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
>>>     on Internet-related public policies;
>>>   * Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;
>>>
>>> All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some
>>> branches of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but
>>> this is neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been
>>> something the committee has done historically in the context of
>>> Internet policy. By contrast, facilitating treaties was a key listed
>>> objective for the CIRP. Likewise, arbitration and dispute resolution
>>> is not only an operationally binding activity, but is typically only
>>> employed where there are hard underlying legal obligations (ie
>>> treaties) between states that can lead to disputes requiring
>>> adjudication.
>>>
>>> Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN,
>>> but all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational
>>> functioning of the Internet". This would include, for example, the
>>> IETF and other technical standards bodies alongside ICANN.
>>>
>>> The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably closer
>>> to multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that the civil
>>> society stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any reports or
>>> policy instruments it generates. As these instruments are not really
>>> binding anyways, that form of dissent can be relatively meaningful
>>> because it undermines the legitimacy of the policy instrument and
>>> legitimacy is really the only currency it has. As a venue I, at
>>> least, have found it worthwhile engaging in, even though as with all
>>> policy processes it's had its ups and downs. Still, it's not ideal
>>> and wholly unsuited to generating binding policy as opposed to just
>>> generating policy. It is nowhere near robust enough for generating
>>> treaties or overseeing all the technical communities and ICANN.
>>>
>>> Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing like
>>> this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
>>> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
>>> stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command and
>>> control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions. Most,
>>> if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal related to
>>> this particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact that it
>>> would bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply
>>> creating yet one more policy-making venue.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tamir
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>> Dear Tamir
>>>>
>>>> A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with
>>>> this important issue.
>>>> Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied...
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>>>
>>>>> If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state
>>>>> Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the
>>>>> proposal did /not/ follow the OECD model.
>>>>
>>>> I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP
>>>> proposal , and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for
>>>> Change gave a submission
>>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf>
>>>> to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did a
>>>> background paper
>>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011> for IBSA
>>>> meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public documents), which sought
>>>> a UN Body on Internet policies taking from the OECD model. This
>>>> OECD model was specifically discussed in both these papers. The
>>>> mandate of CIRP
>>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>
>>>> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including the
>>>> Committee on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point to
>>>> be discussed later). The stakeholder consultation process of CIRP
>>>> was exactly taken from the OECD model, plus a very important
>>>> additional element that "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP" (OECD
>>>> having no such system and thus being deficient to that extent in
>>>> its multistakeholder content)
>>>>
>>>> See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy here
>>>> <http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=>,
>>>> and that of its predecessor CICCP here
>>>> <http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=>
>>>> . These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop
>>>> policy frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members. Policy
>>>> development is the central objective of OECD, and this is written
>>>> upfront on its Internet economy page
>>>> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/> 'The OECD focuses on the
>>>> development of better policies..."
>>>>
>>>> When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like
>>>> they exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on, the
>>>> respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty development
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to basically
>>>> be doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading of the
>>>> proposal, with the same multistakeholder model, only reinforcement
>>>> through formation of an organic linkage with the IGF and inviting
>>>> its inputs. So, I will like to ask you, how has India's CIRP
>>>> proposal become a multilateral, inter-state, IG body, while OECD's
>>>> CDEP is a multistakeholder, harmless body? That was my original
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you want to  focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on
>>>> just one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets
>>>> discuss it.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we suggested
>>>> just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN oversight for
>>>> this body.... But I can see that when India was making a proposal
>>>> to the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the most contested global
>>>> IG issue, of the US's unilateral oversight over ICANN, and the
>>>> express mandate of the WSIS that"all governments should have an
>>>> equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance
>>>> and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the
>>>> Internet" (para 68), which directly speaks to equal oversight role
>>>> over ICANN, if there has to be one. Now, India did not have time to
>>>> make an elaborate separate proposal for oversight transition, and
>>>> put that role under the proposed new Committee for Internet Related
>>>> Policies. In doing so, it picked up the language from 2 Models of
>>>> IG architecture put forward by the (multistakeholder) Working Group
>>>> on IG <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> .
>>>>
>>>> Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in the UN
>>>> clearly called
>>>>
>>>> "for the establishment of an open­ended working group under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for
>>>> CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of
>>>> all
>>>> Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek tofill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept
>>>> of Enhanced Co­operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"
>>>>
>>>> So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have just said,
>>>> remove the oversight role from this committee and the rest is ok...
>>>> Within a few months, at the next CSTD meeting, India again said,
>>>> tell us what issues you have with our proposal and lets discuss
>>>> them. No response. Then in another few months, on its own, in its
>>>> submission to the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India separated
>>>> the issue and proposed mechanism for general Internet related
>>>> public policy development (as OECD does) and the oversight role, on
>>>> which they asked for a separate discussion and possible mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as before, to
>>>> Northern government and big business, but also to the tech
>>>> community and most of the civil society... And this is the
>>>> hypocrisy that I point to.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a
>>>>> multi-stakeholder context.
>>>>
>>>> This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic
>>>> constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have linked
>>>> to OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities of UN
>>>> bodies, like UNESCO
>>>> <http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco>, WHO
>>>> <http://www.who.int/about/en/>, UNDP
>>>> <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html>, and
>>>> if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant mode
>>>> of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies as
>>>> listed) then maybe you can see this one
>>>> <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> .... 
>>>> Most of these do more or less exactly the same stuff as OECD
>>>> committees do... How often have you seen hard law coming out of the
>>>> UN . And then OECD also produces binding agreements... What and how
>>>> is what OECD does 'soft' and what UN does 'hard'... There is no
>>>> IMHO basis for your statement and claim.
>>>>
>>>> As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring
>>>> to OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN
>>>> CIRP be not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees
>>>> multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP
>>>> proposal, but if you havent it is again here
>>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>,
>>>> and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as
>>>> OECD's CDEP.
>>>>
>>>> It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email
>>>> denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and
>>>> are calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for
>>>> the hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder
>>>> participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech
>>>> community rep recently called the OECD process as
>>>> "multistakeholderism at work" (
>>>> http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions ). Such
>>>> adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder,
>>>> are commonplace....  But the same people call a proposal form
>>>> developing countries with the same stakeholder participation model
>>>> as multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is extremely
>>>> unfair. And a great example of hegemonic discourse at work,
>>>> extremely efficiently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On digital issues, civil society has direct input into that
>>>>> policy-making process, and this has been the case since the Seoul
>>>>> Ministerial in 2009 
>>>>
>>>> I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such
>>>> inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But in
>>>> any case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed for
>>>> the UN CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups
>>>> preceding the inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD.
>>>>
>>>>> (the recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy which
>>>>> you refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed
>>>>> functionally with respect to the nature or scope of digital issues
>>>>> undertaken or civil society's role therein).
>>>>
>>>> I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but
>>>> proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" (
>>>> http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf
>>>>   )  while changing its name in 2014.  What I want to know is
>>>> whether any civil society group asked for change in this Committees
>>>> stakeholder consultation processes to making it 'really
>>>> multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not considered so
>>>> (which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP proposal). I know that
>>>> nothing like this happened. Why?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports
>>>>> or, at most, soft law instruments 
>>>>
>>>> As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language
>>>> in such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply
>>>> the hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and
>>>> sustain.
>>>>
>>>>> -- nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful
>>>>> for civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt to
>>>>> resolve policy issues. We definitely do not have the final say on
>>>>> these policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state parties.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, 
>>>>
>>>> If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of
>>>> being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.
>>>>
>>>>> meaning they will keep working until views of all member states
>>>>> and of the four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant:
>>>>> the business community, the technical community, a trade union
>>>>> community and on telecommunications and digital issues, civil
>>>>> society). To date there has been only one single occasion where a
>>>>> policy document was adopted by the OECD over the sustained
>>>>> objections of civil society.
>>>>
>>>> That was the single most important document produced by the
>>>> committee "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others
>>>> issues too I know, they listen but the inter gov committee finally
>>>> decides. And I am sure that much has been written in OECD policy
>>>> docs that does not pass full civil society muster.... You are
>>>> over-blowing the camaraderie.  And if there  is indeed some kind
>>>> of a 'temporary and limited congruence' of libertarian civil
>>>> society and tech community with the Northern countries on Internet
>>>> issues, that has a different basis, and is essentially temporary
>>>> and limited. Such congruence often takes place between civil
>>>> society and developing country views in most global social,
>>>> economic and cultural polity issues. Lets not get into that
>>>> discussion. 9But if you want to, I am happy to )..
>>>>>
>>>>> Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on
>>>>> anyone. In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely
>>>>> unimplemented by OECD member states. They tend to form more of a
>>>>> reference or normative statement that is at most useful as one
>>>>> single input into domestic policy-making processes (I note
>>>>> incidentally that I do a lot of national policy development and
>>>>> that in my experience most OECD policies tend to be more useful to
>>>>> civil society than to other segments of society, for whatever
>>>>> that's worth).
>>>>
>>>> Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read
>>>> in detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I
>>>> referenced and others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have been
>>>> reading about.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the
>>>>> time (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.
>>>>
>>>> I hope my above references corrects it.....
>>>>> It was to be based on a command and control model. 
>>>>
>>>> It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20 percent
>>>> had the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to Tunis
>>>> Agenda references India needed to put somewhere in its proposal,
>>>> (2) India was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in less than a
>>>> year after the initial proposal, in its proposal to WG on Enhanced
>>>> Cooperation, India split the proposal to separate the oversight
>>>> mechanism issue... However, the attitude to, and name calling vis a
>>>> vis, its proposal for a Un platform to develop Internet related
>>>> policies, and similar proposals by groups like mine, did not move
>>>> an inch... It was the same diabolical multilateral,, inter gov,
>>>> proposal, out to control the Internet...
>>>>
>>>> This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country view,
>>>> which does not behove the global civil society.
>>>>
>>>>> It envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the OECD,
>>>>> directly implements its policies by its control of the root, etc),
>>>>> but with governments at the helm as opposed to the stakeholder model. 
>>>>
>>>> Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper
>>>> since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is
>>>> outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN.
>>>> And even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and mis-characterise
>>>> proposals from developing country (given their under-capacity to
>>>> defend them), it is easy to see that the wording on 'oversight' in
>>>> the Indiam proposal came from the WGIG report, where the
>>>> distinctions between oversight and actual ICANN operations was
>>>> clearly made, over much diligent discussions in an entirely
>>>> multi-stakeholder fashion.
>>>>> Indeed, one element of the proposal would have been to place ICANN
>>>>> (and perhaps some of the other technical communities) under the
>>>>> control of the new UN governance body. This is very different from
>>>>> the OECD soft policy-development process.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been
>>>> discussed in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by subsequent
>>>> Indian proposals.
>>>>
>>>> IÂ  am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further
>>>> information or clarification that you might require.
>>>>
>>>> And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has
>>>> become a deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )...
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best (and happy 2016 !),
>>>>> Tamir
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a
>>>>>>> non sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like the
>>>>>>> OECD have to imply a normative endorsement of the status quo?
>>>>>>> Working with the system that we've currently got can go hand in
>>>>>>> hand with efforts to make the system as a whole better. Not to
>>>>>>> mention the value of damage control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the
>>>>>> engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial
>>>>>> that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is
>>>>>> really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
>>>>>> multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
>>>>>> society, even though we may be working with you per force. And
>>>>>> also ask these governments how they brazenly run such a inter-gov
>>>>>> policy system when they criticise any similar effort by UN as
>>>>>> being distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and say pious
>>>>>> things like that Internet is just not the kind of thing to be
>>>>>> governed in an inter-gov manner. Are we ready to make such a
>>>>>> statement at the Ministrial, while, ok, accepting your logic, not
>>>>>> stopping to engage with OECD's policy processes, in a 'damage
>>>>>> control' way, as you put it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011
>>>>>> when they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism proposal
>>>>>> which was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's model as
>>>>>> being inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably bad,
>>>>>> representing the worst things that any human mind could ever come
>>>>>> up with...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on
>>>>>> Digital Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee on
>>>>>> computers, communication and information policy -- this happened
>>>>>> much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of India's UN
>>>>>> proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee was being
>>>>>> formed, civil society tell OECDÂ  that Internet cannot be
>>>>>> governed in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming this
>>>>>> new committee thy should make it genuinely multistakeholder....
>>>>>> No, no one spoke a word.... I am ready to be told that I am
>>>>>> wrong. To repeat, not one word was said, much less a statement
>>>>>> made.  it was not that civil society asked for it, and they were
>>>>>> refused, whereby I may accept what you are saying... They never
>>>>>> uttered a single word.... Such is its pusillanimity in front of
>>>>>> the powerful, while the real job of civil society is to challenge
>>>>>> the most powerful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in
>>>>>> the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd
>>>>>> voice recently spoke about whether OECD's process is
>>>>>> multistakeholder enough, the general consensus was, leave that
>>>>>> aside, lets focus on substantive issues!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage,
>>>>>> suddenly no one can even think of any important enough non
>>>>>> ICANN-y Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have
>>>>>> spent years wondering whether any or enough of such  issues even
>>>>>> exist. It is a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at the
>>>>>> OECD, and such policy issues roll out like no ones business -
>>>>>> work in the Internet age, sharing economy, economics of data,
>>>>>> algorithmic economy, policy implications of internet of things,
>>>>>> big data and social profiling ........... The list is unending.
>>>>>> Civil society itself actively keeps suggesting new policy areas
>>>>>> and engaging with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums like
>>>>>> this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet or
>>>>>> digital policies related body, and all such areas can very well
>>>>>> be dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted domains
>>>>>> (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells OECD's
>>>>>> Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous when OECD
>>>>>> has about 50 other committees dealing with every possible area,
>>>>>> where, by  that logic , specific issues of Internet impact could
>>>>>> have been adequately dealt with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>>>>> Lea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>>>     Grande Parm,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Dear Carlos,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Nice to hear from you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the civil
>>>>>>>     society section that engages with OECD's Internet policy
>>>>>>>     processes is really a pretty big part of the civil society
>>>>>>>     groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my question may
>>>>>>>     be taken just as being addressed to this quite big civil
>>>>>>>     society section, vis a vis their apparently contradictory
>>>>>>>     stand when they are at the OECD (the club of the rich
>>>>>>>     countries) vis a vis when they are at the UN (a grouping of
>>>>>>>     all countries) .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     best regards, parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>     Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>>>>     the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>>>>     become my pet question...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>>>>     all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>>>>     stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>>>>     OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>>>>     Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>     on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>     Hi all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>>>>     is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>>>>     Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>>>>     important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>>>>     coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>>>>     OECD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Best, Carol
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160220/a468752d/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/20160220/a468752d/attachment.sig>

From yannis at registry.asia  Sat Feb 20 22:49:09 2016
From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:49:09 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Announcing: Pakistan Country IGF
In-Reply-To: <56C8D218.4020502@softwarefreedom.org>
References: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com> <56C8D218.4020502@softwarefreedom.org>
Message-ID: <853AB4E0-B8F4-4823-9972-B4331FB204AF@registry.asia>

Congratulations Sadaf.

Great to have one more local initiatives running in the Asia region. Would hope to have that discussion also feedback to the Asia Pacific Regional IGF too. 

Happy to contribute any experience that we can lend from the APrIGF as well as on the youth engagement part.

Thanks.
Yannis

On 21 Feb 2016, at 4:52 AM, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org> wrote:

Congratulations!  Please let us know how can we help.

P.S. You are way ahead of us in your neighborhood who have a MAG but no
Indian IGF.

On 02/19/2016 06:23 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Dear Sadaf, 
> 
> Congrats for this initiative and thank you for sharing. It's great to
> see further proliferation of national IGFs across the world. I'm
> assuming this is on the radar of the IGF Secretariat? It's important for
> these initiatives to feed back into the global IGF and there are a
> number of IGF MAG members have been actively involved in making this
> link more relevant and robust. My personal experience in national IGFs
> is limited to the UK example, but I know there are others on the MAG who
> would be more than happy to provide guidance and advice. Let me know if
> you would like me to forward this info to the MAG list.
> 
> Best and good luck!
> 
> *Lea Kaspar*
> 
> Head of Programmes|GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> 
> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
> 
> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
> 
> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sadaf Khan <sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com
> <mailto:sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>    Dear All, 
> 
>    We are very happy to announce that we are planning to initiate
>    *Pakistan Country Internet Governance Forum* this year. We hope to
>    organize first yearly event in September 2016. 
> 
>    Several civil society organizations including Media Matters for
>    Democracy, Bytes for All, Pakistan and Internet Policy Observatory
>    of Pakistan (IPOP) and other relevant stakeholders are collaborating
>    for this purpose. PakIGF is going to be a collaborative
>    multi-stakeholder effort. While we already have ICANN onboard, we
>    are reaching out to several international organizations, local
>    universities, government authorities and other institutions seeking
>    collaborations and support to organize Pakistan Country IGF. A
>    Multi-stakehodler Advisory Group (MAG) will be announced by the end
>    of March 2016. The event website will soon be live on www.pakigf.pk
>    <http://www.pakigf.pk/>.
> 
>    We will be keeping everyone in the loop and welcome ideas and
>    feedback from other organisations who have arranged national IGFs in
>    other countries to make sure that we can arrange an event that
>    successfully enriches the internet governance policy debates in
>    Pakistan.
> 
>    With Regards,
> 
>    *Sadaf Khan*
> 
>    *Director Programs*
> 
>    *Media Matters for Democracy *
> 
>    mediamatters.pk <http://mediamatters.pk> | mediamatterspakistan.org
>    <http://mediamatterspakistan.org>|@mmfd_pak
> 
> 
>    ____________________________________________________________
>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org
Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in
Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

Best Regards,

Yannis Li
DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address: 12F, Daily House, 35-37 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong
Tel: +852 2244 7920   ︳Fax: +852 2244 7902   ︳http://www.dot.asia









From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb 21 04:25:25 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:55:25 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Fwd: Re: OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56C8E649.9020307@cippic.ca>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca>
 <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net> <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca>
 <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net> <56B8ADEE.5010102@itforchange.net>
 <56C8E649.9020307@cippic.ca>
Message-ID: <56C98285.5040708@itforchange.net>

Thanks Tamir

You are chipping at my central argument from many different directions,
in a manner which IMHO is tangential to the main issue I propose for
consideration. However, I will still respond to all of them. But so that
the main issue does not get lost in all the endless discussion of the
main traits and fine distinctions between many different bodies, which
btw would always be there, I present my main proposal again below.

Leave aside whether OECD's CDEP (Committee on Digital Economy Policy)
facilitates treaties or not, and other such finer points; my proposition
is simple. Are you, and others here, ready to have a Internet policy
body in the UN which *exactly* of the same mandate (I am sure that you
wont have problem in adding a more bit of social mandate to the economic
one, that is harmless, right) as the OECD's CDEP and have the *exact*
same method of stakeholder engagement/ participation?

And as said we have facing us the UN WG on enhanced cooperation which
should begun functioning soon where civil society would need to put its
proposals and respond to others (BTW, do note that this UN WG has much
better form of other stakeholder participation that any OECD or CoE
body, and it is UN... I am ready to hear anyone who disagrees with this
claim.)

Therefore, I hope CS groups here will have a response to this question.

And indeed, if the response is no, I would like to know, why so..If the
justification is that they are not ready for a multilateral (ML)
Internet policy related body in the UN (as Lea says), the next question
is, are these groups ready to make a statement to the forthcoming OECD
ministerial that OECD's CDEP is a ML body and not a MS one, and this is
no way to make Internet policies, more so when OED countries use the
MSism ruse to block any progress towards development of Internet related
policies, and/or the connected work of discussions, analysis, and so on.

...........................   .............................  

I have put a line above to separate the above clear questions from the
discussion below, so that their specificity and clarity is not lost.

Now, I'd try to respond to your various points.

1. You say OECD's CDEP does not have the mandate to facilitate treaties.
(Apart from, as above, I am ready to have a UN committee with exactly
the same mandate, treaty facilitation or not) do remember that treaties
are specific instruments bearing the authority of their signatories.
They may employ any convenient body for help, and later to be the
custodian of them. None of OECD committees have an express mandate of
treaty facilitation , but OECD has done treaties, whereby it is obvious
that the corresponding committee in any case facilitated it.
Correspondingly, there is no doubt that if and when OECD wants to have a
treaty on an Internet related issue, it will be facilitated by CDEP ( I
read CDEP's objectives 2 and 3-i as quite enough to take such a role)...
Now, see for instancethe mandate of the UNESCO
<http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15244&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>,
there is no mention of treaties, but then UNESCO has facilitated
numerous treaties. So, I consider your this point as rather weak.

2. Next, you take the defence that CDEP has been around for a long time,
and so its case is different. As you know, it was established 2-3 years
ago changing the name and (considerable) part of the mandate of an
earlier committee. Apart from other considerable changes of mandate, do
you note, and I made this point earlier, that it is the first time that
it declares that it makes Internet policy in a multistakeholder
(MS)fashion. Was this change of mandate discussed with its CS advisory
committee? if not, in any case it is a very bad case of MS non
participation. And if inputs were indeed taken, then apparently the CS
advisory group must have agreed that CDEP is a MS body... That happened
just 2-3 years ago. Not too long ago! Is the CS advisory group not
answerable then why they agreed to let CDEP call itself MS but around
the same time and afterwards the same CS groups would not accept a
similar arrangement at the UN as MS... Is this not hypocrisy... What
kind of arguments can hide that fact. And therefore, CDEP has always
been there itself is  weak argument in this particular argument.

3. You say CoE clearly makes treaties, but then for it you put forward
other defences. Apart from the fact that OECD also makes treaties even
if less often that CoE, this is a slippery argument to change the
defences for CoE to another set of unsubstantiated and weak one... OF
course UN also has its human rights instruments and human rights courts.
Just last week it is a UN body which gave its judgement on Assange's
inappropriate confinement and not a CoE body.... But then there will
always be some difference between one thing and another, one situation
and the next. But the arguments in this case too IMHO do not add up..

4. You (and others) give all kinds of arguments in defence of OECD and
CoE, but it is very disappointing that you miss (side step?) the simple,
straight -forward, and powerful issue of democracy, and equal
representation of all people, regions and countries. Is it a small point
which we can just brush aside? In no other area of global governance,
global civil society does such a thing. Quite the opposite, they are
mostly solidly with developing regions and countries, where the most
excluded and marginalised reside. Is it not civil society's job to
preponderantly represent these people? And if someone has to be given
the benefit of doubt, it has to be these people, and the regions and
groups from which they come, but the club of rich countries.

5. You have begun to bring in the argument of human rights record of
different countries and regions ( I expect this argument to become more
prominent as other defensive arguments fall by the wayside). Yes, it is
important, but we also know the human rights violations by the rich
countries, even in civil and political rights areas, just think Snowden
and Assange, but then there is this big area of social, economic and
cultural rights, which it seems we just want to fully forget. It is the
neoliberal order being put together by the rich countries that is
responsible for untold miseries and deprivations the world over, and the
Internet and IG are strongly implicated in this process. What about
these violations of rights, and who is doing them most? Forums where all
countries are present have certainly a much better record than rich
country clubs if we look at the whole set of human rights together. I am
happy to discuss this point further is you like.

6. Lastly, you contend, "...the civil society presence at the OECD is
global. You, yourself, are a member of the stakeholder group, let's not
forget.". I am there just to observe, and do not undertake any
participation at all. (If I did, id be arguing these things over there
which I havent.) Because I dont find this manner of global inclusion
legitimate, when all countries are not represented, and only the richest
ones are. It is anathema to me. I did accept the invitation to the Seoul
OECD ministerial and was there when the CS advisory body was formed. I
insisted on the inclusion of this sentence in the CS Seoul declaration,
which is supposed to be the founding doc of the OECD's CS committee.
"Global Internet policy-making should involve equal participation of all
people, countries, and stakeholders." However, I can see that apparently
the group has completely forgotten about this part of their founding
document, and plans to do nothing about it. I do keep reminding them
often, as I am doing currently, but with no response.

regards
parminder

PS: Since IRP group is also cc ed, let me remind everyone that this
group is right now inputting into CoE's IG strategic doc, so maybe they
may want to tell them what is the right way in their estimation of MS
and not ML Internet policy making as the CoE (like everyone else) does
today...


On Sunday 21 February 2016 03:48 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
> Thanks again for the detailed reply and again I apologize for the
> delayed response. I'll respond to some of what you say in line, but I
> have not been following WSIS10+, so will leave those elements for
> others to address..
>
> On 2/8/2016 10:02 AM, parminder wrote:
>> The first point in my response was about the nature of UN based
>> proposals for Internet related policy making, which I insist remain
>> on the table. we especially cannot dodge them in view of the new UN
>> WG on enhanced cooperation which will begin working later this year.
>> In that regard my question is:
>>
>> What is the response of civil society groups here to the proposal to
>> institute an Internet policy development model in the UN which is
>> exactly, repeat, exactly, the same as the CDEP process in the OECD
>> (whereby the only difference will be that instead of the 34 richest
>> countries making policy, there will the full list of 190 or so, or a
>> rotating smaller representative group of them, plus a clear
>> institutionalised linkage to the IGF)?
>>
>> The second, complimentary question is, as follows:
>>
>> The only logical and defensible reason for not accepting the above
>> proposal that I can think of is that such a proposal about does not
>> represent a mutistakeholder model of Internet policy making, and the
>> major civil society groups and persons here will only accept a
>> multistakeholder model of policy making (whatever it is).
>>
>> Fair enough. In that case, is there a proposal to make this case to
>> the forthcoming OECD ministerial organised around the work of its
>> Committee on Digital Economy Policy (which is OECD's Internet policy
>> making organ)? I mean to at least clearly say, in a specific
>> statement,  to the ministerial that we do not accept their model of
>> Internet policy making, since it is not multistakeholder (and also
>> offer a multistakeholder option, which if you refuse their model, of
>> course they'd ask for). This is the first ministerial after the CDEP
>> was formed with a re-adopted mandate, which for the first time claims
>> that it develops policy through a 'multistakeholder process'. 
>> Since, the civil society groups failed to raise this issue when the
>> CDEP was formed 2 years back and they were asked for their inputs,
>> would they want to now correct their mistake, and take this issue up
>> in the forthcoming public meeting of the OECD ministrial?
>> If not, why so? Where do their multistakeholderist energies, which
>> are to be seen to be believed when the arena is the UN, disappear in
>> front of the comity of the richest countries of the world ? Whom they
>> join in the first place in the UN arena to sing multistakeholderist
>> paeans. Why not expose this extreme hypocrisy of theirs, which is so
>> easily done, they would not have words to come back with, which,
>> excuse my slipping into cynicism, I btw i suspect is why most groups
>> dont do it. we cant do such things to our friends, right!
> CDEP has been around for a very very long time, it was merely renamed
> from ICCP a few years back, without any real change in orientation or
> scope of operation. There have been several ministerials over the
> years, and in some of these, governance issues were front and center.
> For example, in the Seoul Ministerial (which has not even reached its
> 10 year milestone yet, to put things in perspective) governance was
> the main topic of discussion and where civil society's standing and
> role at CDEP (then ICCP) was formalized, providing an official and
> independent channel for civil society input into OECD internet-related
> policy-making. This was a big step, and one that was taken not too
> long ago. Governance is not a central issue in each and every
> ministerial, nor should it be.
>
> In addition, in my own experience, governance issues have come up at
> CDEP many times, but mostly on a case by case basis where the process
> has broken down one way or another. This has led to some improvements,
> eg as I noted in my previous email, sometimes the civil society
> stakeholder group can formulate its differing views regarding an OECD
> policy paper, and these will be incorporated into the formal release
> of the document. Given the types of things that come out of CDEP, this
> is a useful and effective remedy. Those types of tweaks have been
> effective, and the OECD has (again in my experience) been generally
> responsive, which has likely further forestalled calls for
> broad-ranged changes.
>
> I should note briefly that in terms of civil society / stakeholder
> engagement, at least, the civil society presence at the OECD is
> global. You, yourself, are a member of the stakeholder group, let's
> not forget. Finally, while I'm not sure there is an immediate need for
> tectonic shifts in the CDEP's stakeholder model as it's evolved in the
> past few years since the seoul ministerial, I would still not
> recommend the model for any body that has a treaty-coordination role.
>>
>> In the CS advisory group to the OECD's CDEP, one person did propose
>> that it should seek greater multistakeholderism in CDEP's policy
>> making processes, but this proposal was made light of by others,
>> seeking focus on substantive issues instead!! Why such shyness with
>> the OECD, when the same groups are never short on reprimanding UN
>> bodies - extant or proposed, on this matter?
> I'm not very involved in this ministerial, but I have seen one
> proposal to have a panel on governance. It came late in the day, so I
> don't know if it'll make the cut, but the point is this one panel
> would not be enough to dramatically fix any deficiencies in the OECD
> process. I would think the proposal for dramatic reform you mention
> would have to be carefully formulated ahead of time, and this
> groundwork has not been done. Perhaps it's because the OECD has tended
> to be fairly responsive to multi stakeholder concerns when these come
> up, as noted above. These case by case improvements to the stakeholder
> model have proven an efficient and effective way of advancing matters,
> so the impetus for dramatic change so soon on the heels of the seoul
> ministerial has been low.
>>
>> The job of civil society is to speak up to the most powerful, not be
>> in convenient alliances with them.
>>
>> Also, CoE's Internet policy mechanism is "right now" seeking civil
>> society input into their IG strategy.... It makes policy frameworks
>> in a similar manner as OCED (but apparently with less formal
>> stakeholder systems). Why not tell them, this is what we think is
>> multistakholder policy making, and we would expect CoE to adopt it.
>> That is our input, or at least one of the inputs, to their IG
>> strategy (It is CoE's treaty on cyber crime that is often pushed post
>> facto as the 'gold standards' for developing countries to accede to.
>> A cursory search throws up another one on 'automatic processing of
>> individual data'. But somehow policy, even hard law based, processes
>> of the 'good countries' done in fully multi-lateral ways seem to
>> completely fall off civil society's radar.)Â  )
> CoE is not the same as OECD's CDEP. For one thing, in spite of  your
> repeated claims, CDEP does not have any sort of treaty coordination
> role (a role, I note, that you would retain for your UN coordination
> body). Very few CDEP outputs (a handful over the course of decades)
> are even in a format that would be conducive to coordinating a treaty,
> most are policy-like reports, raw data analysis or maybe at most
> general policy statements. I cannot think of one CDEP output that has
> in fact become a treaty. The closest might be the Privacy Guidelines,
> which have a format that might be conducive to a treaty-like
> instrument. These are an exception to the rule, though, and moreover
> they have not been implemented by some OECD countries (let alone
> formed the basis for an international treaty). In this regard, it
> largely replicates what ITU-D already does which is create non-binding
> policy reports and data analysis.
>
> CoE by contrast is, as you say, a treaty coordinating body. However,
> while contributing to the international dialogue on Internet issues
> (like any other regional or national body), CoE is somewhat contiguous
> with the EU system and, moreover, has much stronger democratic
> mechanisms and safeguards than are available at the UN, including a
> non-partisan parliamentary system, judicial system and binding
> over-arching human rights instrument. Again, there are no comparators
> at the UN level that could mitigate the harms that might result from a
> purely state-led Internet treaty-coordination body, so this, too,
> would not work as a model. (not to belittle the UN, just to say that
> you would want a stronger, truly stakeholder makeup to counteract this
> lack). That being said, I'm not very active at CoE, so I would not
> want to speak to the efficacy of that model and whether it does or
> does not need to improve in terms of its multi-stakeholder formats.
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>>
>> It is time for those who occupy the space of the global civil society
>> working in the IG area to engage with these uncomfortable questions.
>> They would not be able to retain global legitimacy if they do not...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 07 February 2016 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> Dear Tamir
>>>
>>> Thanks for your response, which is the most well argued and
>>> comprehensive one that I have ever received for this question that I
>>> have asked several times in the last many years. So thanks again.
>>>
>>> There is another important aspect of your email that I would like to
>>> respond to but let me first do so for
>>>
>>>     "Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing
>>>     like this, or that these elements could have been stripped from
>>>     the CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed
>>>     at a later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these
>>>     command and control elements seemed as integral if not primary
>>>     functions. Most, if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP
>>>     proposal related to this particular aspect of the proposal,
>>>     which is the fact that it would bring about multi-lateral
>>>     control as opposed to simply creating yet one more policy-making
>>>     venue."
>>>
>>> I will come to IT for Change part the last bec it is the least
>>> important thing here.
>>>
>>> The "command and control" aspect of CIRP that you point to chiefly
>>> is about the ICANN oversight part (the treaty facilitating aspect
>>> being common to OECD and CoE committees and thus is symmetric ).
>>> Please note that the CIRP proposal clearly says that it has picked
>>> CIRP's mandate items from the institutional models suggested by the
>>> Working Group on IG's report. This report clearly says that the
>>> oversight role is the role currently undertaken by US Dept of
>>> Commerce. Obviously, therefore the CIRP proposed only to take up
>>> that role which is currently played by the US Dept of commerce.
>>>
>>> The question then that I have for you; how is ICANN working under
>>> the oversight of US government not a 'command and control'
>>> structure, and I hear it always referred to as a multistakeholder
>>> structure, but if the same role was played together by all countries
>>> it became a 'command and control' structure?  (The current IANA
>>> transition process not being relevant here bec it was not envisaged
>>> at the time that CIRP was proposed and then roundly criticised).
>>>
>>> Second part: "these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
>>> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
>>> stage (perhaps too late?)" (from your email below.
>>>
>>> I have said this before, the proposal itself said, we are open to
>>> discussing, the Indian gov rep at Nairobi IGF, immediately after the
>>> proposal as made, said, we are open to discuss and change it, and at
>>> the next CSTD meeting, India again said we are open to change it and
>>> invited ideas. No response, other than, the whole thing should
>>> simply be abandoned. Most importantly, India actually separated the
>>> oversight part from that for 'other public policy making' in its
>>> submission to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation whose
>>> precise mandate was to come up with an appropriate global Internet
>>> governance related institutional architecture, esp for 'public
>>> policy making' plus ICANN oversight. Civil society members were in
>>> there in that WG, and those outside made written submissions, over
>>> two rounds, but any proposal to have an OECD kind of Internet
>>> related public policy mechanism remained fully ignored, and
>>> considered as multilateralist and therefore evil...
>>>
>>> So, I cannot see how you and others decide that it "was too late"...
>>> The right to make the rules of game, and what is the right time,
>>> what is the right way to propose a thing, and so on, is one of the
>>> biggest forms of hegemonic power.... I dont accept it. The proposal
>>> still stands today, you, and others,  need to comment on it as it
>>> is being proposed to you, as I am proposing to you, and not take the
>>> cover of, that was the wrong time, and the wrong way, and so on...
>>>
>>> As I said, the WG on enhanced cooperation is being reconstituted,
>>> you and others here are global players in the IG space by choice and
>>> profession; my question to you all is, what is your response to my
>>> proposal (forget others) to develop a Internet related public policy
>>> development mechanism inside the UN "on the exact model" as it
>>> happens in the OECD. I will await yours and other people's response.
>>> And if I do not get it, keep asking this question. This is about the
>>> denial of the right of self determination and right of democratic
>>> participation of the huge majority of the world's population (non
>>> OECD countries). A right, which in view is, even prior to all other
>>> rights, a right which determines what rights are...
>>>
>>> Lastly, your comment on ITfC's positions: yes, we have always asked
>>> for an OECD like Internet related policy mechanism in the UN, in the
>>> exact model of how it works in the OECD, where it gets called as a
>>> multistakeholder model. For ICANN oversight we has for a different
>>> kind of model. Not only ITfC but JNC (Just Net Coalition) has made
>>> similar demands (see our submissions to the the NetMundial
>>> Conference)... But both IT for Change and JNC get branded as pro -
>>> multilateralism and much of the dominant civil society here by
>>> contrast as pro multi-stakeholderism, while, as should be obvious
>>> from this discussion, the *real and only difference* is that we
>>> refuse to work with US- and OCED-centric 'global' policy and IG
>>> models and ask instead to have all countries equally involved, while
>>> preserving the same amount of multistakeholder participation as it
>>> exists in extant models today. (I say this with full authority, and
>>> am ready to stand by it.) But the fact that the mentioned labels
>>> have been so successfully affixed and sustained speaks of the power
>>> of hegemonic discourse, even within the so called civil society... I
>>> think we need to be doing better than that. We need to be able to
>>> discuss things opening, and provide answers to the questions that
>>> get asked about our positions. If even civil society does not do it,
>>> who would.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Sunday 07 February 2016 05:40 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>>
>>>> I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your
>>>> detailed answer.
>>>>
>>>> I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD
>>>> policy-making process and particularly on how it manages
>>>> multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary
>>>> impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way
>>>> to improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often
>>>> raised on a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements
>>>> over time, at least in my opinion).
>>>>
>>>> I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents
>>>> or activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my
>>>> recollection the opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements
>>>> of the proposal that /did/ envision this type of binding action,
>>>> which is far different from what the OECD does.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented in
>>>> the UN:
>>>>
>>>>   * Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and
>>>>     operational functioning of the Internet, including global
>>>>     standards setting;
>>>>   * Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
>>>>     on Internet-related public policies;
>>>>   * Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;
>>>>
>>>> All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some
>>>> branches of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but
>>>> this is neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been
>>>> something the committee has done historically in the context of
>>>> Internet policy. By contrast, facilitating treaties was a key
>>>> listed objective for the CIRP. Likewise, arbitration and dispute
>>>> resolution is not only an operationally binding activity, but is
>>>> typically only employed where there are hard underlying legal
>>>> obligations (ie treaties) between states that can lead to disputes
>>>> requiring adjudication.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN,
>>>> but all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational
>>>> functioning of the Internet". This would include, for example, the
>>>> IETF and other technical standards bodies alongside ICANN.
>>>>
>>>> The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably
>>>> closer to multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that the
>>>> civil society stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any
>>>> reports or policy instruments it generates. As these instruments
>>>> are not really binding anyways, that form of dissent can be
>>>> relatively meaningful because it undermines the legitimacy of the
>>>> policy instrument and legitimacy is really the only currency it
>>>> has. As a venue I, at least, have found it worthwhile engaging in,
>>>> even though as with all policy processes it's had its ups and
>>>> downs. Still, it's not ideal and wholly unsuited to generating
>>>> binding policy as opposed to just generating policy. It is nowhere
>>>> near robust enough for generating treaties or overseeing all the
>>>> technical communities and ICANN.
>>>>
>>>> Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing
>>>> like this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the
>>>> CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a
>>>> later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command
>>>> and control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions.
>>>> Most, if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal
>>>> related to this particular aspect of the proposal, which is the
>>>> fact that it would bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to
>>>> simply creating yet one more policy-making venue.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Tamir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>> Dear Tamir
>>>>>
>>>>> A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with
>>>>> this important issue.
>>>>> Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state
>>>>>> Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the
>>>>>> proposal did /not/ follow the OECD model.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP
>>>>> proposal , and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for
>>>>> Change gave a submission
>>>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf>
>>>>> to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did
>>>>> a background paper
>>>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011> for IBSA
>>>>> meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public documents), which
>>>>> sought a UN Body on Internet policies taking from the OECD model.
>>>>> This OECD model was specifically discussed in both these papers.
>>>>> The mandate of CIRP
>>>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>
>>>>> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including the
>>>>> Committee on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point to
>>>>> be discussed later). The stakeholder consultation process of CIRP
>>>>> was exactly taken from the OECD model, plus a very important
>>>>> additional element that "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP"
>>>>> (OECD having no such system and thus being deficient to that
>>>>> extent in its multistakeholder content)
>>>>>
>>>>> See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy here
>>>>> <http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=>,
>>>>> and that of its predecessor CICCP here
>>>>> <http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=>
>>>>> . These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop
>>>>> policy frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members.
>>>>> Policy development is the central objective of OECD, and this is
>>>>> written upfront on its Internet economy page
>>>>> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/> 'The OECD focuses on the
>>>>> development of better policies..."
>>>>>
>>>>> When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like
>>>>> they exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on, the
>>>>> respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty
>>>>> development process.
>>>>>
>>>>> UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to
>>>>> basically be doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading
>>>>> of the proposal, with the same multistakeholder model, only
>>>>> reinforcement through formation of an organic linkage with the IGF
>>>>> and inviting its inputs. So, I will like to ask you, how has
>>>>> India's CIRP proposal become a multilateral, inter-state, IG body,
>>>>> while OECD's CDEP is a multistakeholder, harmless body? That was
>>>>> my original question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if you want to  focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on
>>>>> just one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets
>>>>> discuss it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we
>>>>> suggested just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN
>>>>> oversight for this body.... But I can see that when India was
>>>>> making a proposal to the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the
>>>>> most contested global IG issue, of the US's unilateral oversight
>>>>> over ICANN, and the express mandate of the WSIS that"all
>>>>> governments should have an equal role and responsibility for
>>>>> international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability,
>>>>> security and continuity of the Internet" (para 68), which directly
>>>>> speaks to equal oversight role over ICANN, if there has to be one.
>>>>> Now, India did not have time to make an elaborate separate
>>>>> proposal for oversight transition, and put that role under the
>>>>> proposed new Committee for Internet Related Policies. In doing so,
>>>>> it picked up the language from 2 Models of IG architecture put
>>>>> forward by the (multistakeholder) Working Group on IG
>>>>> <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in the UN
>>>>> clearly called
>>>>>
>>>>> "for the establishment of an open­ended working group under
>>>>> the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for
>>>>> CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of
>>>>> all
>>>>> Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek tofill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept
>>>>> of Enhanced Co­operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"
>>>>>
>>>>> So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have just said,
>>>>> remove the oversight role from this committee and the rest is
>>>>> ok... Within a few months, at the next CSTD meeting, India again
>>>>> said, tell us what issues you have with our proposal and lets
>>>>> discuss them. No response. Then in another few months, on its own,
>>>>> in its submission to the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India
>>>>> separated the issue and proposed mechanism for general Internet
>>>>> related public policy development (as OECD does) and the oversight
>>>>> role, on which they asked for a separate discussion and possible
>>>>> mechanism.
>>>>>
>>>>> But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as before, to
>>>>> Northern government and big business, but also to the tech
>>>>> community and most of the civil society... And this is the
>>>>> hypocrisy that I point to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a
>>>>>> multi-stakeholder context.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic
>>>>> constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have linked
>>>>> to OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities of UN
>>>>> bodies, like UNESCO
>>>>> <http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco>, WHO
>>>>> <http://www.who.int/about/en/>, UNDP
>>>>> <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html>,
>>>>> and if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant
>>>>> mode of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies as
>>>>> listed) then maybe you can see this one
>>>>> <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> .... 
>>>>> Most of these do more or less exactly the same stuff as OECD
>>>>> committees do... How often have you seen hard law coming out of
>>>>> the UN . And then OECD also produces binding agreements... What
>>>>> and how is what OECD does 'soft' and what UN does 'hard'... There
>>>>> is no IMHO basis for your statement and claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring
>>>>> to OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN
>>>>> CIRP be not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees
>>>>> multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP
>>>>> proposal, but if you havent it is again here
>>>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>,
>>>>> and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as
>>>>> OECD's CDEP.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email
>>>>> denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and
>>>>> are calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for
>>>>> the hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder
>>>>> participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech
>>>>> community rep recently called the OECD process as
>>>>> "multistakeholderism at work" (
>>>>> http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions ). Such
>>>>> adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder,
>>>>> are commonplace....  But the same people call a proposal form
>>>>> developing countries with the same stakeholder participation model
>>>>> as multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is extremely
>>>>> unfair. And a great example of hegemonic discourse at work,
>>>>> extremely efficiently.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On digital issues, civil society has direct input into that
>>>>>> policy-making process, and this has been the case since the Seoul
>>>>>> Ministerial in 2009 
>>>>>
>>>>> I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such
>>>>> inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But in
>>>>> any case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed for
>>>>> the UN CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups
>>>>> preceding the inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (the recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy which
>>>>>> you refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed
>>>>>> functionally with respect to the nature or scope of digital
>>>>>> issues undertaken or civil society's role therein).
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but
>>>>> proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" (
>>>>> http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf
>>>>>   )  while changing its name in 2014.  What I want to know is
>>>>> whether any civil society group asked for change in this
>>>>> Committees stakeholder consultation processes to making it 'really
>>>>> multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not considered so
>>>>> (which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP proposal). I know that
>>>>> nothing like this happened. Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports
>>>>>> or, at most, soft law instruments 
>>>>>
>>>>> As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language
>>>>> in such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply
>>>>> the hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and
>>>>> sustain.
>>>>>
>>>>>> -- nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful
>>>>>> for civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt to
>>>>>> resolve policy issues. We definitely do not have the final say on
>>>>>> these policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, 
>>>>>
>>>>> If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of
>>>>> being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.
>>>>>
>>>>>> meaning they will keep working until views of all member states
>>>>>> and of the four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant:
>>>>>> the business community, the technical community, a trade union
>>>>>> community and on telecommunications and digital issues, civil
>>>>>> society). To date there has been only one single occasion where a
>>>>>> policy document was adopted by the OECD over the sustained
>>>>>> objections of civil society.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was the single most important document produced by the
>>>>> committee "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others
>>>>> issues too I know, they listen but the inter gov committee finally
>>>>> decides. And I am sure that much has been written in OECD policy
>>>>> docs that does not pass full civil society muster.... You are
>>>>> over-blowing the camaraderie.  And if there  is indeed some kind
>>>>> of a 'temporary and limited congruence' of libertarian civil
>>>>> society and tech community with the Northern countries on Internet
>>>>> issues, that has a different basis, and is essentially temporary
>>>>> and limited. Such congruence often takes place between civil
>>>>> society and developing country views in most global social,
>>>>> economic and cultural polity issues. Lets not get into that
>>>>> discussion. 9But if you want to, I am happy to )..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on
>>>>>> anyone. In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely
>>>>>> unimplemented by OECD member states. They tend to form more of a
>>>>>> reference or normative statement that is at most useful as one
>>>>>> single input into domestic policy-making processes (I note
>>>>>> incidentally that I do a lot of national policy development and
>>>>>> that in my experience most OECD policies tend to be more useful
>>>>>> to civil society than to other segments of society, for whatever
>>>>>> that's worth).
>>>>>
>>>>> Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read
>>>>> in detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I
>>>>> referenced and others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have been
>>>>> reading about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the
>>>>>> time (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope my above references corrects it.....
>>>>>> It was to be based on a command and control model. 
>>>>>
>>>>> It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20 percent
>>>>> had the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to Tunis
>>>>> Agenda references India needed to put somewhere in its proposal,
>>>>> (2) India was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in less than a
>>>>> year after the initial proposal, in its proposal to WG on Enhanced
>>>>> Cooperation, India split the proposal to separate the oversight
>>>>> mechanism issue... However, the attitude to, and name calling vis
>>>>> a vis, its proposal for a Un platform to develop Internet related
>>>>> policies, and similar proposals by groups like mine, did not move
>>>>> an inch... It was the same diabolical multilateral,, inter gov,
>>>>> proposal, out to control the Internet...
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country
>>>>> view, which does not behove the global civil society.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the OECD,
>>>>>> directly implements its policies by its control of the root,
>>>>>> etc), but with governments at the helm as opposed to the
>>>>>> stakeholder model. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper
>>>>> since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is
>>>>> outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN.
>>>>> And even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and mis-characterise
>>>>> proposals from developing country (given their under-capacity to
>>>>> defend them), it is easy to see that the wording on 'oversight' in
>>>>> the Indiam proposal came from the WGIG report, where the
>>>>> distinctions between oversight and actual ICANN operations was
>>>>> clearly made, over much diligent discussions in an entirely
>>>>> multi-stakeholder fashion.
>>>>>> Indeed, one element of the proposal would have been to place
>>>>>> ICANN (and perhaps some of the other technical communities) under
>>>>>> the control of the new UN governance body. This is very different
>>>>>> from the OECD soft policy-development process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been
>>>>> discussed in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by
>>>>> subsequent Indian proposals.
>>>>>
>>>>> IÂ  am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further
>>>>> information or clarification that you might require.
>>>>>
>>>>> And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has
>>>>> become a deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )...
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best (and happy 2016 !),
>>>>>> Tamir
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a
>>>>>>>> non sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like
>>>>>>>> the OECD have to imply a normative endorsement of the status
>>>>>>>> quo? Working with the system that we've currently got can go
>>>>>>>> hand in hand with efforts to make the system as a whole better.
>>>>>>>> Not to mention the value of damage control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the
>>>>>>> engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial
>>>>>>> that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is
>>>>>>> really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and not
>>>>>>> multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to civil
>>>>>>> society, even though we may be working with you per force. And
>>>>>>> also ask these governments how they brazenly run such a
>>>>>>> inter-gov policy system when they criticise any similar effort
>>>>>>> by UN as being distastefully inter-gov and multi-lateral, and
>>>>>>> say pious things like that Internet is just not the kind of
>>>>>>> thing to be governed in an inter-gov manner. Are we ready to
>>>>>>> make such a statement at the Ministrial, while, ok, accepting
>>>>>>> your logic, not stopping to engage with OECD's policy processes,
>>>>>>> in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011
>>>>>>> when they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism
>>>>>>> proposal which was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's
>>>>>>> model as being inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably
>>>>>>> bad, representing the worst things that any human mind could
>>>>>>> ever come up with...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on
>>>>>>> Digital Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee
>>>>>>> on computers, communication and information policy -- this
>>>>>>> happened much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of
>>>>>>> India's UN proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee
>>>>>>> was being formed, civil society tell OECDÂ  that Internet cannot
>>>>>>> be governed in an inter gov manner, and when they are forming
>>>>>>> this new committee thy should make it genuinely
>>>>>>> multistakeholder.... No, no one spoke a word.... I am ready to
>>>>>>> be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one word was said, much
>>>>>>> less a statement made.  it was not that civil society asked for
>>>>>>> it, and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you are
>>>>>>> saying... They never uttered a single word.... Such is its
>>>>>>> pusillanimity in front of the powerful, while the real job of
>>>>>>> civil society is to challenge the most powerful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when in
>>>>>>> the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd
>>>>>>> voice recently spoke about whether OECD's process is
>>>>>>> multistakeholder enough, the general consensus was, leave that
>>>>>>> aside, lets focus on substantive issues!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage,
>>>>>>> suddenly no one can even think of any important enough non
>>>>>>> ICANN-y Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have
>>>>>>> spent years wondering whether any or enough of such  issues
>>>>>>> even exist. It is a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are at
>>>>>>> the OECD, and such policy issues roll out like no ones business
>>>>>>> - work in the Internet age, sharing economy, economics of data,
>>>>>>> algorithmic economy, policy implications of internet of things,
>>>>>>> big data and social profiling ........... The list is unending.
>>>>>>> Civil society itself actively keeps suggesting new policy areas
>>>>>>> and engaging with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums
>>>>>>> like this, that no, there is no need to have a separate Internet
>>>>>>> or digital policies related body, and all such areas can very
>>>>>>> well be dealt by policy bodies looking at respective impacted
>>>>>>> domains (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no one tells
>>>>>>> OECD's Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is superfluous
>>>>>>> when OECD has about 50 other committees dealing with every
>>>>>>> possible area, where, by  that logic , specific issues of
>>>>>>> Internet impact could have been adequately dealt with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>>>>>> Lea
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>     Grande Parm,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Dear Carlos,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Nice to hear from you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the
>>>>>>>>     civil society section that engages with OECD's Internet
>>>>>>>>     policy processes is really a pretty big part of the civil
>>>>>>>>     society groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my
>>>>>>>>     question may be taken just as being addressed to this quite
>>>>>>>>     big civil society section, vis a vis their apparently
>>>>>>>>     contradictory stand when they are at the OECD (the club of
>>>>>>>>     the rich countries) vis a vis when they are at the UN (a
>>>>>>>>     grouping of all countries) .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     best regards, parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>     Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>>>>>     the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>>>>>     become my pet question...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>>>>>     all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>>>>>     stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>>>>>     OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>>>>>     Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>     on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>     Hi all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>>>>>     is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>>>>>     Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>>>>>     important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>>>>>     coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>>>>>     OECD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Best, Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160221/13dd8743/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb 21 05:39:46 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 16:09:46 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Fwd: Re: OECD - what is going on? and
 what do you need to know?
In-Reply-To: <56C98285.5040708@itforchange.net>
References: <56AA0116.7030609@gmail.com> <56AA02D2.1000407@itforchange.net>
 <56AA1180.8050601@cafonso.ca> <56AA1413.2090203@itforchange.net>
 <CAJTVAjy9wD2rSAUDVbHL3UHxjv0kJmvNV3mJgm8Ta6eEiPaP_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AA1ED6.7070207@itforchange.net> <56AA405B.2080901@cippic.ca>
 <56AE249C.4090202@itforchange.net> <56B68B8A.3050205@cippic.ca>
 <56B71505.6040409@itforchange.net> <56B8ADEE.5010102@itforchange.net>
 <56C8E649.9020307@cippic.ca> <56C98285.5040708@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <56C993F2.9090803@itforchange.net>

see a correction below

On Sunday 21 February 2016 02:55 PM, parminder wrote:
> Thanks Tamir
>
> You are chipping at my central argument from many different
> directions, in a manner which IMHO is tangential to the main issue I
> propose for consideration. However, I will still respond to all of
> them. But so that the main issue does not get lost in all the endless
> discussion of the main traits and fine distinctions between many
> different bodies, which btw would always be there, I present my main
> proposal again below.
>
> Leave aside whether OECD's CDEP (Committee on Digital Economy Policy)
> facilitates treaties or not, and other such finer points; my
> proposition is simple. Are you, and others here, ready to have a
> Internet policy body in the UN which *exactly* of the same mandate (I
> am sure that you wont have problem in adding a more bit of social
> mandate to the economic one, that is harmless, right) as the OECD's
> CDEP and have the *exact* same method of stakeholder engagement/
> participation?
>
> And as said we have facing us the UN WG on enhanced cooperation which
> should begun functioning soon where civil society would need to put
> its proposals and respond to others (BTW, do note that this UN WG has
> much better form of other stakeholder participation that any OECD or
> CoE body, and it is UN... I am ready to hear anyone who disagrees with
> this claim.)
>
> Therefore, I hope CS groups here will have a response to this question.
>
> And indeed, if the response is no, I would like to know, why so..If
> the justification is that they are not ready for a multilateral (ML)
> Internet policy related body in the UN (as Lea says), the next
> question is, are these groups ready to make a statement to the
> forthcoming OECD ministerial that OECD's CDEP is a ML body and not a
> MS one, and this is no way to make Internet policies, more so when OED
> countries use the MSism ruse to block any progress towards development
> of Internet related policies, and/or the connected work of
> discussions, analysis, and so on.

meaning, blocking it in the UN (while they do it themselves)

>
> ...........................   .............................  
>
> I have put a line above to separate the above clear questions from the
> discussion below, so that their specificity and clarity is not lost.
>
> Now, I'd try to respond to your various points.
>
> 1. You say OECD's CDEP does not have the mandate to facilitate
> treaties. (Apart from, as above, I am ready to have a UN committee
> with exactly the same mandate, treaty facilitation or not) do remember
> that treaties are specific instruments bearing the authority of their
> signatories. They may employ any convenient body for help, and later
> to be the custodian of them. None of OECD committees have an express
> mandate of treaty facilitation , but OECD has done treaties, whereby
> it is obvious that the corresponding committee in any case facilitated
> it. Correspondingly, there is no doubt that if and when OECD wants to
> have a treaty on an Internet related issue, it will be facilitated by
> CDEP ( I read CDEP's objectives 2 and 3-i as quite enough to take such
> a role)... Now, see for instancethe mandate of the UNESCO
> <http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15244&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>,
> there is no mention of treaties, but then UNESCO has facilitated
> numerous treaties. So, I consider your this point as rather weak.
>
> 2. Next, you take the defence that CDEP has been around for a long
> time, and so its case is different. As you know, it was established
> 2-3 years ago changing the name and (considerable) part of the mandate
> of an earlier committee. Apart from other considerable changes of
> mandate, do you note, and I made this point earlier, that it is the
> first time that it declares that it makes Internet policy in a
> multistakeholder (MS)fashion. Was this change of mandate discussed
> with its CS advisory committee? if not, in any case it is a very bad
> case of MS non participation. And if inputs were indeed taken, then
> apparently the CS advisory group must have agreed that CDEP is a MS
> body... That happened just 2-3 years ago. Not too long ago! Is the CS
> advisory group not answerable then why they agreed to let CDEP call
> itself MS but around the same time and afterwards the same CS groups
> would not accept a similar arrangement at the UN as MS... Is this not
> hypocrisy... What kind of arguments can hide that fact. And therefore,
> CDEP has always been there itself is  weak argument in this particular
> argument.
>
> 3. You say CoE clearly makes treaties, but then for it you put forward
> other defences. Apart from the fact that OECD also makes treaties even
> if less often that CoE, this is a slippery argument to change the
> defences for CoE to another set of unsubstantiated and weak one... OF
> course UN also has its human rights instruments and human rights
> courts. Just last week it is a UN body which gave its judgement on
> Assange's inappropriate confinement and not a CoE body.... But then
> there will always be some difference between one thing and another,
> one situation and the next. But the arguments in this case too IMHO do
> not add up..
>
> 4. You (and others) give all kinds of arguments in defence of OECD and
> CoE, but it is very disappointing that you miss (side step?) the
> simple, straight -forward, and powerful issue of democracy, and equal
> representation of all people, regions and countries. Is it a small
> point which we can just brush aside? In no other area of global
> governance, global civil society does such a thing. Quite the
> opposite, they are mostly solidly with developing regions and
> countries, where the most excluded and marginalised reside. Is it not
> civil society's job to preponderantly represent these people? And if
> someone has to be given the benefit of doubt, it has to be these
> people, and the regions and groups from which they come, but the club
> of rich countries.
>
> 5. You have begun to bring in the argument of human rights record of
> different countries and regions ( I expect this argument to become
> more prominent as other defensive arguments fall by the wayside). Yes,
> it is important, but we also know the human rights violations by the
> rich countries, even in civil and political rights areas, just think
> Snowden and Assange, but then there is this big area of social,
> economic and cultural rights, which it seems we just want to fully
> forget. It is the neoliberal order being put together by the rich
> countries that is responsible for untold miseries and deprivations the
> world over, and the Internet and IG are strongly implicated in this
> process. What about these violations of rights, and who is doing them
> most? Forums where all countries are present have certainly a much
> better record than rich country clubs if we look at the whole set of
> human rights together. I am happy to discuss this point further is you
> like.
>
> 6. Lastly, you contend, "...the civil society presence at the OECD is
> global. You, yourself, are a member of the stakeholder group, let's
> not forget.". I am there just to observe, and do not undertake any
> participation at all. (If I did, id be arguing these things over there
> which I havent.) Because I dont find this manner of global inclusion
> legitimate, when all countries are not represented, and only the
> richest ones are. It is anathema to me. I did accept the invitation to
> the Seoul OECD ministerial and was there when the CS advisory body was
> formed. I insisted on the inclusion of this sentence in the CS Seoul
> declaration, which is supposed to be the founding doc of the OECD's CS
> committee. "Global Internet policy-making should involve equal
> participation of all people, countries, and stakeholders." However, I
> can see that apparently the group has completely forgotten about this
> part of their founding document, and plans to do nothing about it. I
> do keep reminding them often, as I am doing currently, but with no
> response.
>
> regards
> parminder
>
> PS: Since IRP group is also cc ed, let me remind everyone that this
> group is right now inputting into CoE's IG strategic doc, so maybe
> they may want to tell them what is the right way in their estimation
> of MS and not ML Internet policy making as the CoE (like everyone
> else) does today...
>
>
> On Sunday 21 February 2016 03:48 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>> Thanks again for the detailed reply and again I apologize for the
>> delayed response. I'll respond to some of what you say in line, but I
>> have not been following WSIS10+, so will leave those elements for
>> others to address..
>>
>> On 2/8/2016 10:02 AM, parminder wrote:
>>> The first point in my response was about the nature of UN based
>>> proposals for Internet related policy making, which I insist remain
>>> on the table. we especially cannot dodge them in view of the new UN
>>> WG on enhanced cooperation which will begin working later this year.
>>> In that regard my question is:
>>>
>>> What is the response of civil society groups here to the proposal to
>>> institute an Internet policy development model in the UN which is
>>> exactly, repeat, exactly, the same as the CDEP process in the OECD
>>> (whereby the only difference will be that instead of the 34 richest
>>> countries making policy, there will the full list of 190 or so, or a
>>> rotating smaller representative group of them, plus a clear
>>> institutionalised linkage to the IGF)?
>>>
>>> The second, complimentary question is, as follows:
>>>
>>> The only logical and defensible reason for not accepting the above
>>> proposal that I can think of is that such a proposal about does not
>>> represent a mutistakeholder model of Internet policy making, and the
>>> major civil society groups and persons here will only accept a
>>> multistakeholder model of policy making (whatever it is).
>>>
>>> Fair enough. In that case, is there a proposal to make this case to
>>> the forthcoming OECD ministerial organised around the work of its
>>> Committee on Digital Economy Policy (which is OECD's Internet policy
>>> making organ)? I mean to at least clearly say, in a specific
>>> statement,  to the ministerial that we do not accept their model of
>>> Internet policy making, since it is not multistakeholder (and also
>>> offer a multistakeholder option, which if you refuse their model, of
>>> course they'd ask for). This is the first ministerial after the CDEP
>>> was formed with a re-adopted mandate, which for the first time
>>> claims that it develops policy through a 'multistakeholder
>>> process'.  Since, the civil society groups failed to raise this
>>> issue when the CDEP was formed 2 years back and they were asked for
>>> their inputs, would they want to now correct their mistake, and take
>>> this issue up in the forthcoming public meeting of the OECD ministrial?
>>> If not, why so? Where do their multistakeholderist energies, which
>>> are to be seen to be believed when the arena is the UN, disappear in
>>> front of the comity of the richest countries of the world ? Whom
>>> they join in the first place in the UN arena to sing
>>> multistakeholderist paeans. Why not expose this extreme hypocrisy of
>>> theirs, which is so easily done, they would not have words to come
>>> back with, which, excuse my slipping into cynicism, I btw i suspect
>>> is why most groups dont do it. we cant do such things to our
>>> friends, right!
>> CDEP has been around for a very very long time, it was merely renamed
>> from ICCP a few years back, without any real change in orientation or
>> scope of operation. There have been several ministerials over the
>> years, and in some of these, governance issues were front and center.
>> For example, in the Seoul Ministerial (which has not even reached its
>> 10 year milestone yet, to put things in perspective) governance was
>> the main topic of discussion and where civil society's standing and
>> role at CDEP (then ICCP) was formalized, providing an official and
>> independent channel for civil society input into OECD
>> internet-related policy-making. This was a big step, and one that was
>> taken not too long ago. Governance is not a central issue in each and
>> every ministerial, nor should it be.
>>
>> In addition, in my own experience, governance issues have come up at
>> CDEP many times, but mostly on a case by case basis where the process
>> has broken down one way or another. This has led to some
>> improvements, eg as I noted in my previous email, sometimes the civil
>> society stakeholder group can formulate its differing views regarding
>> an OECD policy paper, and these will be incorporated into the formal
>> release of the document. Given the types of things that come out of
>> CDEP, this is a useful and effective remedy. Those types of tweaks
>> have been effective, and the OECD has (again in my experience) been
>> generally responsive, which has likely further forestalled calls for
>> broad-ranged changes.
>>
>> I should note briefly that in terms of civil society / stakeholder
>> engagement, at least, the civil society presence at the OECD is
>> global. You, yourself, are a member of the stakeholder group, let's
>> not forget. Finally, while I'm not sure there is an immediate need
>> for tectonic shifts in the CDEP's stakeholder model as it's evolved
>> in the past few years since the seoul ministerial, I would still not
>> recommend the model for any body that has a treaty-coordination role.
>>>
>>> In the CS advisory group to the OECD's CDEP, one person did propose
>>> that it should seek greater multistakeholderism in CDEP's policy
>>> making processes, but this proposal was made light of by others,
>>> seeking focus on substantive issues instead!! Why such shyness with
>>> the OECD, when the same groups are never short on reprimanding UN
>>> bodies - extant or proposed, on this matter?
>> I'm not very involved in this ministerial, but I have seen one
>> proposal to have a panel on governance. It came late in the day, so I
>> don't know if it'll make the cut, but the point is this one panel
>> would not be enough to dramatically fix any deficiencies in the OECD
>> process. I would think the proposal for dramatic reform you mention
>> would have to be carefully formulated ahead of time, and this
>> groundwork has not been done. Perhaps it's because the OECD has
>> tended to be fairly responsive to multi stakeholder concerns when
>> these come up, as noted above. These case by case improvements to the
>> stakeholder model have proven an efficient and effective way of
>> advancing matters, so the impetus for dramatic change so soon on the
>> heels of the seoul ministerial has been low.
>>>
>>> The job of civil society is to speak up to the most powerful, not be
>>> in convenient alliances with them.
>>>
>>> Also, CoE's Internet policy mechanism is "right now" seeking civil
>>> society input into their IG strategy.... It makes policy frameworks
>>> in a similar manner as OCED (but apparently with less formal
>>> stakeholder systems). Why not tell them, this is what we think is
>>> multistakholder policy making, and we would expect CoE to adopt it.
>>> That is our input, or at least one of the inputs, to their IG
>>> strategy (It is CoE's treaty on cyber crime that is often pushed
>>> post facto as the 'gold standards' for developing countries to
>>> accede to. A cursory search throws up another one on 'automatic
>>> processing of individual data'. But somehow policy, even hard law
>>> based, processes of the 'good countries' done in fully multi-lateral
>>> ways seem to completely fall off civil society's radar.)Â  )
>> CoE is not the same as OECD's CDEP. For one thing, in spite of  your
>> repeated claims, CDEP does not have any sort of treaty coordination
>> role (a role, I note, that you would retain for your UN coordination
>> body). Very few CDEP outputs (a handful over the course of decades)
>> are even in a format that would be conducive to coordinating a
>> treaty, most are policy-like reports, raw data analysis or maybe at
>> most general policy statements. I cannot think of one CDEP output
>> that has in fact become a treaty. The closest might be the Privacy
>> Guidelines, which have a format that might be conducive to a
>> treaty-like instrument. These are an exception to the rule, though,
>> and moreover they have not been implemented by some OECD countries
>> (let alone formed the basis for an international treaty). In this
>> regard, it largely replicates what ITU-D already does which is create
>> non-binding policy reports and data analysis.
>>
>> CoE by contrast is, as you say, a treaty coordinating body. However,
>> while contributing to the international dialogue on Internet issues
>> (like any other regional or national body), CoE is somewhat
>> contiguous with the EU system and, moreover, has much stronger
>> democratic mechanisms and safeguards than are available at the UN,
>> including a non-partisan parliamentary system, judicial system and
>> binding over-arching human rights instrument. Again, there are no
>> comparators at the UN level that could mitigate the harms that might
>> result from a purely state-led Internet treaty-coordination body, so
>> this, too, would not work as a model. (not to belittle the UN, just
>> to say that you would want a stronger, truly stakeholder makeup to
>> counteract this lack). That being said, I'm not very active at CoE,
>> so I would not want to speak to the efficacy of that model and
>> whether it does or does not need to improve in terms of its
>> multi-stakeholder formats.
>>
>> Best,
>> Tamir
>>>
>>> It is time for those who occupy the space of the global civil
>>> society working in the IG area to engage with these uncomfortable
>>> questions. They would not be able to retain global legitimacy if
>>> they do not...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday 07 February 2016 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>> Dear Tamir
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your response, which is the most well argued and
>>>> comprehensive one that I have ever received for this question that
>>>> I have asked several times in the last many years. So thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> There is another important aspect of your email that I would like
>>>> to respond to but let me first do so for
>>>>
>>>>     "Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was
>>>>     nothing like this, or that these elements could have been
>>>>     stripped from the CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests
>>>>     this was proposed at a later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but
>>>>     as presented these command and control elements seemed as
>>>>     integral if not primary functions. Most, if not all of the
>>>>     commentary regarding the CIRP proposal related to this
>>>>     particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact that it
>>>>     would bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply
>>>>     creating yet one more policy-making venue."
>>>>
>>>> I will come to IT for Change part the last bec it is the least
>>>> important thing here.
>>>>
>>>> The "command and control" aspect of CIRP that you point to chiefly
>>>> is about the ICANN oversight part (the treaty facilitating aspect
>>>> being common to OECD and CoE committees and thus is symmetric ).
>>>> Please note that the CIRP proposal clearly says that it has picked
>>>> CIRP's mandate items from the institutional models suggested by the
>>>> Working Group on IG's report. This report clearly says that the
>>>> oversight role is the role currently undertaken by US Dept of
>>>> Commerce. Obviously, therefore the CIRP proposed only to take up
>>>> that role which is currently played by the US Dept of commerce.
>>>>
>>>> The question then that I have for you; how is ICANN working under
>>>> the oversight of US government not a 'command and control'
>>>> structure, and I hear it always referred to as a multistakeholder
>>>> structure, but if the same role was played together by all
>>>> countries it became a 'command and control' structure?  (The
>>>> current IANA transition process not being relevant here bec it was
>>>> not envisaged at the time that CIRP was proposed and then roundly
>>>> criticised).
>>>>
>>>> Second part: "these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP
>>>> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later
>>>> stage (perhaps too late?)" (from your email below.
>>>>
>>>> I have said this before, the proposal itself said, we are open to
>>>> discussing, the Indian gov rep at Nairobi IGF, immediately after
>>>> the proposal as made, said, we are open to discuss and change it,
>>>> and at the next CSTD meeting, India again said we are open to
>>>> change it and invited ideas. No response, other than, the whole
>>>> thing should simply be abandoned. Most importantly, India actually
>>>> separated the oversight part from that for 'other public policy
>>>> making' in its submission to the UN Working Group on Enhanced
>>>> Cooperation whose precise mandate was to come up with an
>>>> appropriate global Internet governance related institutional
>>>> architecture, esp for 'public policy making' plus ICANN oversight.
>>>> Civil society members were in there in that WG, and those outside
>>>> made written submissions, over two rounds, but any proposal to have
>>>> an OECD kind of Internet related public policy mechanism remained
>>>> fully ignored, and considered as multilateralist and therefore evil...
>>>>
>>>> So, I cannot see how you and others decide that it "was too
>>>> late"... The right to make the rules of game, and what is the right
>>>> time, what is the right way to propose a thing, and so on, is one
>>>> of the biggest forms of hegemonic power.... I dont accept it. The
>>>> proposal still stands today, you, and others,  need to comment on
>>>> it as it is being proposed to you, as I am proposing to you, and
>>>> not take the cover of, that was the wrong time, and the wrong way,
>>>> and so on...
>>>>
>>>> As I said, the WG on enhanced cooperation is being reconstituted,
>>>> you and others here are global players in the IG space by choice
>>>> and profession; my question to you all is, what is your response to
>>>> my proposal (forget others) to develop a Internet related public
>>>> policy development mechanism inside the UN "on the exact model" as
>>>> it happens in the OECD. I will await yours and other people's
>>>> response. And if I do not get it, keep asking this question. This
>>>> is about the denial of the right of self determination and right of
>>>> democratic participation of the huge majority of the world's
>>>> population (non OECD countries). A right, which in view is, even
>>>> prior to all other rights, a right which determines what rights are...
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, your comment on ITfC's positions: yes, we have always asked
>>>> for an OECD like Internet related policy mechanism in the UN, in
>>>> the exact model of how it works in the OECD, where it gets called
>>>> as a multistakeholder model. For ICANN oversight we has for a
>>>> different kind of model. Not only ITfC but JNC (Just Net Coalition)
>>>> has made similar demands (see our submissions to the the NetMundial
>>>> Conference)... But both IT for Change and JNC get branded as pro -
>>>> multilateralism and much of the dominant civil society here by
>>>> contrast as pro multi-stakeholderism, while, as should be obvious
>>>> from this discussion, the *real and only difference* is that we
>>>> refuse to work with US- and OCED-centric 'global' policy and IG
>>>> models and ask instead to have all countries equally involved,
>>>> while preserving the same amount of multistakeholder participation
>>>> as it exists in extant models today. (I say this with full
>>>> authority, and am ready to stand by it.) But the fact that the
>>>> mentioned labels have been so successfully affixed and sustained
>>>> speaks of the power of hegemonic discourse, even within the so
>>>> called civil society... I think we need to be doing better than
>>>> that. We need to be able to discuss things opening, and provide
>>>> answers to the questions that get asked about our positions. If
>>>> even civil society does not do it, who would.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday 07 February 2016 05:40 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>>>
>>>>> I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your
>>>>> detailed answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD
>>>>> policy-making process and particularly on how it manages
>>>>> multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary
>>>>> impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way
>>>>> to improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often
>>>>> raised on a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements
>>>>> over time, at least in my opinion).
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents
>>>>> or activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my
>>>>> recollection the opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements
>>>>> of the proposal that /did/ envision this type of binding action,
>>>>> which is far different from what the OECD does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented
>>>>> in the UN:
>>>>>
>>>>>   * Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical
>>>>>     and operational functioning of the Internet, including global
>>>>>     standards setting;
>>>>>   * Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
>>>>>     on Internet-related public policies;
>>>>>   * Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some
>>>>> branches of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but
>>>>> this is neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been
>>>>> something the committee has done historically in the context of
>>>>> Internet policy. By contrast, facilitating treaties was a key
>>>>> listed objective for the CIRP. Likewise, arbitration and dispute
>>>>> resolution is not only an operationally binding activity, but is
>>>>> typically only employed where there are hard underlying legal
>>>>> obligations (ie treaties) between states that can lead to disputes
>>>>> requiring adjudication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN,
>>>>> but all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational
>>>>> functioning of the Internet". This would include, for example, the
>>>>> IETF and other technical standards bodies alongside ICANN.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably
>>>>> closer to multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that
>>>>> the civil society stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any
>>>>> reports or policy instruments it generates. As these instruments
>>>>> are not really binding anyways, that form of dissent can be
>>>>> relatively meaningful because it undermines the legitimacy of the
>>>>> policy instrument and legitimacy is really the only currency it
>>>>> has. As a venue I, at least, have found it worthwhile engaging in,
>>>>> even though as with all policy processes it's had its ups and
>>>>> downs. Still, it's not ideal and wholly unsuited to generating
>>>>> binding policy as opposed to just generating policy. It is nowhere
>>>>> near robust enough for generating treaties or overseeing all the
>>>>> technical communities and ICANN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing
>>>>> like this, or that these elements could have been stripped from
>>>>> the CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed
>>>>> at a later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these
>>>>> command and control elements seemed as integral if not primary
>>>>> functions. Most, if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP
>>>>> proposal related to this particular aspect of the proposal, which
>>>>> is the fact that it would bring about multi-lateral control as
>>>>> opposed to simply creating yet one more policy-making venue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Tamir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Tamir
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with
>>>>>> this important issue.
>>>>>> Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Parminder,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state
>>>>>>> Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the
>>>>>>> proposal did /not/ follow the OECD model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP
>>>>>> proposal , and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for
>>>>>> Change gave a submission
>>>>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf>
>>>>>> to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did
>>>>>> a background paper
>>>>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011> for IBSA
>>>>>> meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public documents), which
>>>>>> sought a UN Body on Internet policies taking from the OECD model.
>>>>>> This OECD model was specifically discussed in both these papers.
>>>>>> The mandate of CIRP
>>>>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>
>>>>>> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including the
>>>>>> Committee on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point
>>>>>> to be discussed later). The stakeholder consultation process of
>>>>>> CIRP was exactly taken from the OECD model, plus a very important
>>>>>> additional element that "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP"
>>>>>> (OECD having no such system and thus being deficient to that
>>>>>> extent in its multistakeholder content)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy here
>>>>>> <http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=>,
>>>>>> and that of its predecessor CICCP here
>>>>>> <http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=>
>>>>>> . These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop
>>>>>> policy frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members.
>>>>>> Policy development is the central objective of OECD, and this is
>>>>>> written upfront on its Internet economy page
>>>>>> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/> 'The OECD focuses on the
>>>>>> development of better policies..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like
>>>>>> they exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on,
>>>>>> the respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty
>>>>>> development process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to
>>>>>> basically be doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading
>>>>>> of the proposal, with the same multistakeholder model, only
>>>>>> reinforcement through formation of an organic linkage with the
>>>>>> IGF and inviting its inputs. So, I will like to ask you, how has
>>>>>> India's CIRP proposal become a multilateral, inter-state, IG
>>>>>> body, while OECD's CDEP is a multistakeholder, harmless body?
>>>>>> That was my original question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if you want to  focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on
>>>>>> just one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets
>>>>>> discuss it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we
>>>>>> suggested just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN
>>>>>> oversight for this body.... But I can see that when India was
>>>>>> making a proposal to the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the
>>>>>> most contested global IG issue, of the US's unilateral oversight
>>>>>> over ICANN, and the express mandate of the WSIS that"all
>>>>>> governments should have an equal role and responsibility for
>>>>>> international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability,
>>>>>> security and continuity of the Internet" (para 68), which
>>>>>> directly speaks to equal oversight role over ICANN, if there has
>>>>>> to be one. Now, India did not have time to make an elaborate
>>>>>> separate proposal for oversight transition, and put that role
>>>>>> under the proposed new Committee for Internet Related Policies.
>>>>>> In doing so, it picked up the language from 2 Models of IG
>>>>>> architecture put forward by the (multistakeholder) Working Group
>>>>>> on IG <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in the UN
>>>>>> clearly called
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "for the establishment of an open­ended working group under
>>>>>> the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for
>>>>>> CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek tofill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept
>>>>>> of Enhanced Co­operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have just said,
>>>>>> remove the oversight role from this committee and the rest is
>>>>>> ok... Within a few months, at the next CSTD meeting, India again
>>>>>> said, tell us what issues you have with our proposal and lets
>>>>>> discuss them. No response. Then in another few months, on its
>>>>>> own, in its submission to the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation,
>>>>>> India separated the issue and proposed mechanism for general
>>>>>> Internet related public policy development (as OECD does) and the
>>>>>> oversight role, on which they asked for a separate discussion and
>>>>>> possible mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as before, to
>>>>>> Northern government and big business, but also to the tech
>>>>>> community and most of the civil society... And this is the
>>>>>> hypocrisy that I point to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a
>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic
>>>>>> constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have
>>>>>> linked to OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities
>>>>>> of UN bodies, like UNESCO
>>>>>> <http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco>, WHO
>>>>>> <http://www.who.int/about/en/>, UNDP
>>>>>> <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html>,
>>>>>> and if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant
>>>>>> mode of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies
>>>>>> as listed) then maybe you can see this one
>>>>>> <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> .... 
>>>>>> Most of these do more or less exactly the same stuff as OECD
>>>>>> committees do... How often have you seen hard law coming out of
>>>>>> the UN . And then OECD also produces binding agreements... What
>>>>>> and how is what OECD does 'soft' and what UN does 'hard'... There
>>>>>> is no IMHO basis for your statement and claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring
>>>>>> to OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN
>>>>>> CIRP be not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees
>>>>>> multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP
>>>>>> proposal, but if you havent it is again here
>>>>>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>,
>>>>>> and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as
>>>>>> OECD's CDEP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email
>>>>>> denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and
>>>>>> are calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for
>>>>>> the hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder
>>>>>> participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech
>>>>>> community rep recently called the OECD process as
>>>>>> "multistakeholderism at work" (
>>>>>> http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions ). Such
>>>>>> adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder,
>>>>>> are commonplace....  But the same people call a proposal form
>>>>>> developing countries with the same stakeholder participation
>>>>>> model as multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is
>>>>>> extremely unfair. And a great example of hegemonic discourse at
>>>>>> work, extremely efficiently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On digital issues, civil society has direct input into that
>>>>>>> policy-making process, and this has been the case since the
>>>>>>> Seoul Ministerial in 2009 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such
>>>>>> inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But
>>>>>> in any case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed
>>>>>> for the UN CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups
>>>>>> preceding the inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (the recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy
>>>>>>> which you refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed
>>>>>>> functionally with respect to the nature or scope of digital
>>>>>>> issues undertaken or civil society's role therein).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but
>>>>>> proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" (
>>>>>> http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf
>>>>>>   )  while changing its name in 2014.  What I want to know is
>>>>>> whether any civil society group asked for change in this
>>>>>> Committees stakeholder consultation processes to making it
>>>>>> 'really multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not
>>>>>> considered so (which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP
>>>>>> proposal). I know that nothing like this happened. Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports
>>>>>>> or, at most, soft law instruments 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language
>>>>>> in such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply
>>>>>> the hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and
>>>>>> sustain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful
>>>>>>> for civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt
>>>>>>> to resolve policy issues. We definitely do not have the final
>>>>>>> say on these policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state
>>>>>>> parties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of
>>>>>> being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> meaning they will keep working until views of all member states
>>>>>>> and of the four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant:
>>>>>>> the business community, the technical community, a trade union
>>>>>>> community and on telecommunications and digital issues, civil
>>>>>>> society). To date there has been only one single occasion where
>>>>>>> a policy document was adopted by the OECD over the sustained
>>>>>>> objections of civil society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was the single most important document produced by the
>>>>>> committee "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others
>>>>>> issues too I know, they listen but the inter gov committee
>>>>>> finally decides. And I am sure that much has been written in OECD
>>>>>> policy docs that does not pass full civil society muster.... You
>>>>>> are over-blowing the camaraderie.  And if there  is indeed some
>>>>>> kind of a 'temporary and limited congruence' of libertarian civil
>>>>>> society and tech community with the Northern countries on
>>>>>> Internet issues, that has a different basis, and is essentially
>>>>>> temporary and limited. Such congruence often takes place between
>>>>>> civil society and developing country views in most global social,
>>>>>> economic and cultural polity issues. Lets not get into that
>>>>>> discussion. 9But if you want to, I am happy to )..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on
>>>>>>> anyone. In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely
>>>>>>> unimplemented by OECD member states. They tend to form more of a
>>>>>>> reference or normative statement that is at most useful as one
>>>>>>> single input into domestic policy-making processes (I note
>>>>>>> incidentally that I do a lot of national policy development and
>>>>>>> that in my experience most OECD policies tend to be more useful
>>>>>>> to civil society than to other segments of society, for whatever
>>>>>>> that's worth).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read
>>>>>> in detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I
>>>>>> referenced and others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have
>>>>>> been reading about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the
>>>>>>> time (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope my above references corrects it.....
>>>>>>> It was to be based on a command and control model. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20
>>>>>> percent had the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to
>>>>>> Tunis Agenda references India needed to put somewhere in its
>>>>>> proposal, (2) India was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in
>>>>>> less than a year after the initial proposal, in its proposal to
>>>>>> WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India split the proposal to separate
>>>>>> the oversight mechanism issue... However, the attitude to, and
>>>>>> name calling vis a vis, its proposal for a Un platform to develop
>>>>>> Internet related policies, and similar proposals by groups like
>>>>>> mine, did not move an inch... It was the same diabolical
>>>>>> multilateral,, inter gov, proposal, out to control the Internet...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country
>>>>>> view, which does not behove the global civil society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the
>>>>>>> OECD, directly implements its policies by its control of the
>>>>>>> root, etc), but with governments at the helm as opposed to the
>>>>>>> stakeholder model. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper
>>>>>> since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is
>>>>>> outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN.
>>>>>> And even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and
>>>>>> mis-characterise proposals from developing country (given their
>>>>>> under-capacity to defend them), it is easy to see that the
>>>>>> wording on 'oversight' in the Indiam proposal came from the WGIG
>>>>>> report, where the distinctions between oversight and actual ICANN
>>>>>> operations was clearly made, over much diligent discussions in an
>>>>>> entirely multi-stakeholder fashion.
>>>>>>> Indeed, one element of the proposal would have been to place
>>>>>>> ICANN (and perhaps some of the other technical communities)
>>>>>>> under the control of the new UN governance body. This is very
>>>>>>> different from the OECD soft policy-development process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been
>>>>>> discussed in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by
>>>>>> subsequent Indian proposals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IÂ  am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further
>>>>>> information or clarification that you might require.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has
>>>>>> become a deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best (and happy 2016 !),
>>>>>>> Tamir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:48 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Parminder, the assumption of the contradiction seem like a
>>>>>>>>> non sequitur. Why would interest to engage in a process like
>>>>>>>>> the OECD have to imply a normative endorsement of the status
>>>>>>>>> quo? Working with the system that we've currently got can go
>>>>>>>>> hand in hand with efforts to make the system as a whole
>>>>>>>>> better. Not to mention the value of damage control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes Lea, that can be... But does there exist any plan of the
>>>>>>>> engaged civil society to tell the forthcoming OECD Ministerial
>>>>>>>> that the model of Internet policy making that they employ is
>>>>>>>> really a inter-governmental (pluri or multi lateral) one and
>>>>>>>> not multistakeholder one, and as such not really acceptable to
>>>>>>>> civil society, even though we may be working with you per
>>>>>>>> force. And also ask these governments how they brazenly run
>>>>>>>> such a inter-gov policy system when they criticise any similar
>>>>>>>> effort by UN as being distastefully inter-gov and
>>>>>>>> multi-lateral, and say pious things like that Internet is just
>>>>>>>> not the kind of thing to be governed in an inter-gov manner.
>>>>>>>> Are we ready to make such a statement at the Ministrial, while,
>>>>>>>> ok, accepting your logic, not stopping to engage with OECD's
>>>>>>>> policy processes, in a 'damage control' way, as you put it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All these civil society actors and groups were around in 2011
>>>>>>>> when they shouted down India's Internet policy mechanism
>>>>>>>> proposal which was deliberately shaped exactly on the OECD's
>>>>>>>> model as being inter-gov and multilateral, and thus unthinkably
>>>>>>>> bad, representing the worst things that any human mind could
>>>>>>>> ever come up with...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact, it is just 2-3 years ago that OECD's Committee on
>>>>>>>> Digital Economy was formed, morphed from the earlier committee
>>>>>>>> on computers, communication and information policy -- this
>>>>>>>> happened much after the civil society's raucous denouncement of
>>>>>>>> India's UN proposal.... Did, at that point when this committee
>>>>>>>> was being formed, civil society tell OECDÂ  that Internet
>>>>>>>> cannot be governed in an inter gov manner, and when they are
>>>>>>>> forming this new committee thy should make it genuinely
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder.... No, no one spoke a word.... I am ready to
>>>>>>>> be told that I am wrong. To repeat, not one word was said, much
>>>>>>>> less a statement made.  it was not that civil society asked
>>>>>>>> for it, and they were refused, whereby I may accept what you
>>>>>>>> are saying... They never uttered a single word.... Such is its
>>>>>>>> pusillanimity in front of the powerful, while the real job of
>>>>>>>> civil society is to challenge the most powerful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And now, in preparation for the forthcoming Ministerial, when
>>>>>>>> in the civil society advisory group to OECD's committee, an odd
>>>>>>>> voice recently spoke about whether OECD's process is
>>>>>>>> multistakeholder enough, the general consensus was, leave that
>>>>>>>> aside, lets focus on substantive issues!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we are in a discussion about the global policy stage,
>>>>>>>> suddenly no one can even think of any important enough non
>>>>>>>> ICANN-y Internet-related public policy issues at all - we have
>>>>>>>> spent years wondering whether any or enough of such  issues
>>>>>>>> even exist. It is a real joke!.. Just shift the scene, we are
>>>>>>>> at the OECD, and such policy issues roll out like no ones
>>>>>>>> business - work in the Internet age, sharing economy, economics
>>>>>>>> of data, algorithmic economy, policy implications of internet
>>>>>>>> of things, big data and social profiling ........... The list
>>>>>>>> is unending. Civil society itself actively keeps suggesting new
>>>>>>>> policy areas and engaging with them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People like Nick Ashton will actively argue at global forums
>>>>>>>> like this, that no, there is no need to have a separate
>>>>>>>> Internet or digital policies related body, and all such areas
>>>>>>>> can very well be dealt by policy bodies looking at respective
>>>>>>>> impacted domains (work, education, governance, etc) ... But no
>>>>>>>> one tells OECD's Digital Economy Policy Committee that it is
>>>>>>>> superfluous when OECD has about 50 other committees dealing
>>>>>>>> with every possible area, where, by  that logic , specific
>>>>>>>> issues of Internet impact could have been adequately dealt with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lea, you really see nothing contradictory or amiss here!?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Warm wishes,
>>>>>>>>> Lea
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:13 PM, parminder
>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 06:32 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>     Grande Parm,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     "Global IG civil society" as a monolithic bloc? Could you elaborate?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Dear Carlos,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Nice to hear from you!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     I should  not have generalised. My apologies. But the
>>>>>>>>>     civil society section that engages with OECD's Internet
>>>>>>>>>     policy processes is really a pretty big part of the civil
>>>>>>>>>     society groups dominant in the global IG space. So, my
>>>>>>>>>     question may be taken just as being addressed to this
>>>>>>>>>     quite big civil society section, vis a vis their
>>>>>>>>>     apparently contradictory stand when they are at the OECD
>>>>>>>>>     (the club of the rich countries) vis a vis when they are
>>>>>>>>>     at the UN (a grouping of all countries) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     best regards, parminder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     fraternal regards
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     --c.a.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     On 1/28/16 10:00, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>     Thanks Carolina for compiling this information.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     As global IG civil society preparesin full enthusiasm to participate in
>>>>>>>>>>>     the OECD ministerial on digital economy policy, I would ask what has
>>>>>>>>>>>     become my pet question...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Why would you not support the same model of Internet policy making if
>>>>>>>>>>>     all governments instead of just the 34 richest ones are involved, if the
>>>>>>>>>>>     stakeholder participation processes remain exactly the same as with this
>>>>>>>>>>>     OECD process? (And that would include your native country, Brazil.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     I cant make it simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Can all this enthusiasm notbe considered a pro rich countries approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>     Not something that behoves global civil society, which is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>     on the side of the weaker and marginalised, groups and people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     On Thursday 28 January 2016 07:18 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Hi all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Today, we - at PK- have published a couple of short texts about what
>>>>>>>>>>>>     is going on in preparation for the OECD Ministerial Meeting. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Ministerial will take place in Cancun in June 2016.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     We've also included information on how to participate. The most
>>>>>>>>>>>>     important step is to become a member of CSISAC, the civil society
>>>>>>>>>>>>     coalition that channels the participation and concerns of CS in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     OECD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Best, Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     ·     OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecd-sets-the-scene-for-future-decades-of-ict-policy-development
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     ·      Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/organization-for-economic-co-operation-and-development
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     ·      OECD Ministerial Meetings
>>>>>>>>>>>>     https://www.publicknowledge.org/oecd-ministerial-meetings
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160221/0a3a261f/attachment.htm>

From renata.avila at webfoundation.org  Mon Feb 22 05:21:27 2016
From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:21:27 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Affordability Report is out
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc2_vv1Ap=1cWZzf0s_MVc-i6pb1Q92K8hc+jfMVr5z13Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Best Bits,

Today the Alliance for affordable Internet launched its report, with
alarming data of the pace and increased gaps when connecting to the
Internet. On the good side, Latin America is leading in policies and
practices. On the bad side, for the issues we work on, we could see the
parallel of increased connectivity AND increased censorship and
surveillance.  It is a good starting point for conversations, locally, on
how to increase access with human rights approach.

I hope you find this useful

Key findings,

●      *Poverty and income inequality are masking the true state of
Internet affordability. *While 25 of the 51 countries surveyed have met the
current target for “affordable Internet” — 500MB of mobile data priced
below 5% of average national income — not a single country analysed met the
target for those living in poverty ($3.10 or less a day), while just nine
countries met the target for the bottom 20% of income earners.

●      *The high cost to connect continues to exclude billions from the
digital revolution.* The global goal to provide affordable, universal
Internet access focuses specifically on connecting people across the
world’s least developed countries, yet 70% of people in these countries
cannot afford a basic, 500MB per month broadband plan.

●      *The affordability “sweet spot” is broadband priced at 2% or less of
average monthly income, meaning it is time to commit to a more ambitious “1
for 2” affordability target. *When a basic broadband package is priced at
this level, access becomes affordable for all levels of income earners. The
report proposes a new affordability target: 1GB of mobile broadband priced
at 2% or less of average monthly income (“1 for 2”). Driving prices down to
the 2% average level will enable large swathes of the population currently
priced out of access to get online, while increasing the data allowance to
1GB will allow users to make more meaningful use of the Internet.

●      *Bold steps are needed to accelerate connectivity among women, the
poor, and other marginalised populations. *Overcoming the challenges to
access posed by income and gender inequalities will require policies
designed with these populations in mind. Market forces cannot connect
everyone — free or subsidised public access in tandem with digital
education will be critical to enabling connectivity for populations left
behind.



*Snapshot of the 2015-16 Affordability Drivers Index (ADI) rankings:*



*Top 5: Overall ADI Rankings*

*Top 5: Least Developed Countries*

Colombia (1)

Rwanda (11)

Costa Rica (2)

Uganda (16)

Malaysia (3)

The Gambia (20)

Turkey (4)

Myanmar (27)

Peru (5)

Tanzania (30)



The 2015-16 edition of the Affordability Report is available at
a4ai.org/affordability-report, along with all supporting data and an
interactive data explorer.

Renata Avila

Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto

Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A B43D
89CA

Telephone +49 15252609522

@webwewant  <https://twitter.com/webwewant>

*1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| *
*www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter:
@webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160222/fe56dab5/attachment.htm>

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Mon Feb  1 16:28:06 2016
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:28:06 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] NOTE - DO NOT OPEN link from Gene's email
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc7pXOs-ApY6WresJbzDNUa5nezpPfiy-H8x029a9qLwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc7pXOs-ApY6WresJbzDNUa5nezpPfiy-H8x029a9qLwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPFkSBCMU4P0_Jr86ABs=i5PkKh=dnKNhwVDVhkjXvfJMA@mail.gmail.com>

Well noted with thanks.

WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member
Web/OGPL Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Gene's email got compromised this morning. We have fixed it already.
> But please, DO NOT open the link to the google doc.
>
> If you have opened it already, take the following steps ASAP:
>
> * Change your google password
> * Make sure you have a phone number listed on your Google account
> * Optionally, (but heavily recommended!) enable Two-factor
> authentication, which will text you to confirm any suspicious logins.
> * In addition, please check your filter settings. Sometimes fishers
> change your settings to hide the emails they sent from your account.
>
> Best and sorry for any inconvenience.
>
> Carolina
>
> --
> Carolina Rossini
> Vice President, International Policy
> Public Knowledge
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160201/ff059618/attachment.htm>

From sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 22 05:35:44 2016
From: sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com (Sadaf Khan)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:35:44 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Announcing: Pakistan Country IGF
In-Reply-To: <853AB4E0-B8F4-4823-9972-B4331FB204AF@registry.asia>
References: <CABjUq6hy=FcKFK5Yz7sCSOLr589Y4hnK4t66_OrEGF9petE6Fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJTVAjwbzStJ-QTiOq95JK3g6=bMeEZA=oWHy5jWyXU7Rw43ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<56C8D218.4020502@softwarefreedom.org>
	<853AB4E0-B8F4-4823-9972-B4331FB204AF@registry.asia>
Message-ID: <CABjUq6j+KAzqoaaxZFCRFYt6q-tjhR_pdxYUv_f9iacZ4L=MPQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Yannis,

Thank you so much for your support.

Members for all three initiating organisations will be participating in the
APrIGF in July [and hopefully leading some sessions]. We aim to ensure that
discussions from the APrIGF can add and feed into our own discussions in
September.

I will also separately write to you as we chalk out our plans further to
seek advice and feedback from your own experience with organising the
regional IGFs.

Regards,
Sadaf

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Yannis Li <yannis at registry.asia> wrote:

> Congratulations Sadaf.
>
> Great to have one more local initiatives running in the Asia region. Would
> hope to have that discussion also feedback to the Asia Pacific Regional IGF
> too.
>
> Happy to contribute any experience that we can lend from the APrIGF as
> well as on the youth engagement part.
>
> Thanks.
> Yannis
>
> On 21 Feb 2016, at 4:52 AM, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>
> wrote:
>
> Congratulations!  Please let us know how can we help.
>
> P.S. You are way ahead of us in your neighborhood who have a MAG but no
> Indian IGF.
>
> On 02/19/2016 06:23 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> > Dear Sadaf,
> >
> > Congrats for this initiative and thank you for sharing. It's great to
> > see further proliferation of national IGFs across the world. I'm
> > assuming this is on the radar of the IGF Secretariat? It's important for
> > these initiatives to feed back into the global IGF and there are a
> > number of IGF MAG members have been actively involved in making this
> > link more relevant and robust. My personal experience in national IGFs
> > is limited to the UK example, but I know there are others on the MAG who
> > would be more than happy to provide guidance and advice. Let me know if
> > you would like me to forward this info to the MAG list.
> >
> > Best and good luck!
> >
> > *Lea Kaspar*
> >
> > Head of Programmes|GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> >
> > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
> >
> > T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
> >
> > gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sadaf Khan <sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com
> > <mailto:sadaf.baig03 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >    Dear All,
> >
> >    We are very happy to announce that we are planning to initiate
> >    *Pakistan Country Internet Governance Forum* this year. We hope to
> >    organize first yearly event in September 2016.
> >
> >    Several civil society organizations including Media Matters for
> >    Democracy, Bytes for All, Pakistan and Internet Policy Observatory
> >    of Pakistan (IPOP) and other relevant stakeholders are collaborating
> >    for this purpose. PakIGF is going to be a collaborative
> >    multi-stakeholder effort. While we already have ICANN onboard, we
> >    are reaching out to several international organizations, local
> >    universities, government authorities and other institutions seeking
> >    collaborations and support to organize Pakistan Country IGF. A
> >    Multi-stakehodler Advisory Group (MAG) will be announced by the end
> >    of March 2016. The event website will soon be live on www.pakigf.pk
> >    <http://www.pakigf.pk/>.
> >
> >    We will be keeping everyone in the loop and welcome ideas and
> >    feedback from other organisations who have arranged national IGFs in
> >    other countries to make sure that we can arrange an event that
> >    successfully enriches the internet governance policy debates in
> >    Pakistan.
> >
> >    With Regards,
> >
> >    *Sadaf Khan*
> >
> >    *Director Programs*
> >
> >    *Media Matters for Democracy *
> >
> >    mediamatters.pk <http://mediamatters.pk> | mediamatterspakistan.org
> >    <http://mediamatterspakistan.org>|@mmfd_pak
> >
> >
> >    ____________________________________________________________
> >    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >.
> >    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
>
> --
> Warm Regards
> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
> Legal Director
> Software Freedom Law Center
> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023
> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898
> www.softwarefreedom.org
> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org
>
>
> Executive Director
> SFLC.IN
> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014
> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530
> www.sflc.in
> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Yannis Li
> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Address: 12F, Daily House, 35-37 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong
> Tel: +852 2244 7920   ︳Fax: +852 2244 7902   ︳http://www.dot.asia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160222/0e2d4b1f/attachment.htm>

From aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in  Wed Feb 24 01:36:58 2016
From: aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in (Aarti Bhavana)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:06:58 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Accountability blog series
In-Reply-To: <CAF0Y8V2s=B9idypegot_pA6wcx4scppsJbA7zaMty0isQD=-Hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF0Y8V3oU4KbVstfr1WappMu016x-sZLKJ1Jrt7YzMZVxuW-ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF0Y8V2s=B9idypegot_pA6wcx4scppsJbA7zaMty0isQD=-Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF0Y8V1iPGz-jP5jJakbaVbO12Q43q9d8BcTE6EKzZ5V9ZPSgw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The fourth post in our series on the recent developments in the
CCWG-Accountability process can be read here
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-4/>.
This post examines Recommendation 3 (Standard bylaws and fundamental
bylaws) and Recommendation 10 (SO/AC accountability).

As always, we welcome your comments.

Warm regards,
Aarti



Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi |
Sector-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org .
www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . *ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com
<http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com>*|

On 13 February 2016 at 11:37, Aarti Bhavana <aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The next post in our series on the recent developments in the ICANN
> Accountability process can be found here
> <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-2/>.
> This post examines Recommendation 6 (Human Rights) and Recommendation 12
> (Work Stream 2).
>
> As always, we welcome your inputs and comments.
>
> Warm regards,
> Aarti
>
>
>
> Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14,
> Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org .
> www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . *ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com
> <http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com>*|
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 12:01, Aarti Bhavana <aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) has started a blog series
>> on the recent developments in the ICANN Accountability process that is
>> crucial to the IANA Transition. As you may be aware, the Cross Community
>> Working Group-Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has been working hard to
>> address the concerns raised by the ICANN Board, Chartering Organisations
>> and other public comments in response to the third draft proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Over the next few weeks as we head closer to ICANN 55, we shall dissect
>> and discuss each of the 12 recommendations.You can read the first post
>> here
>> <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-1/>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> As always, we welcome your inputs and comments.
>>
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Aarti
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
>> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14,
>> Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91)
>> 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org
>> <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> |
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160224/8396ff57/attachment.htm>

From raquelrenno at gmail.com  Wed Feb 24 11:42:49 2016
From: raquelrenno at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Raquel_Renn=C3=B3?=)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:42:49 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Air-L] CFP Forced migration and digital
 connectivity in(to) Europe, Special collection of Social Media + Society,
 edited by Koen Leurs and Kevin Smets
In-Reply-To: <00655BF384232847B11F8A9380EDC22731273732@WP0047.soliscom.uu.nl>
References: <00655BF384232847B11F8A9380EDC22731273732@WP0047.soliscom.uu.nl>
Message-ID: <CAN8ADkcKftcuntSHXG7TychHzXPn+f44mBJBnZH9_E9jAz_ysw@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leurs, K.H.A. (Koen) <K.H.A.Leurs at uu.nl>
Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM
Subject: [Air-L] CFP Forced migration and digital connectivity in(to)
Europe, Special collection of Social Media + Society, edited by Koen Leurs
and Kevin Smets
To: "'air-l at aoir.org' (air-l at aoir.org)" <air-l at aoir.org>, "A listserv
devoted to Cultural Studies (CULTSTUD-L at LISTS.UMN.EDU)" <
CULTSTUD-L at lists.umn.edu>
Cc: "Smets Kevin (kevin.smets at uantwerpen.be)" <kevin.smets at uantwerpen.be>


Dear colleagues,

apologies for x-posting, and please distribute widely:

Call for papers: Forced migration and digital connectivity in(to) Europe,

Special collection of Social Media + Society, edited by Koen Leurs and
Kevin Smets

While it is increasingly observable that forced migration and digital
connectivity are intertwined, there is a need for more in-depth, critical
research into this topic, especially in the context of Europe. With this
special collection of Social Media + Society, a high standing, peer
reviewed, open-access journal published by Sage, we seek to bring together
cutting-edge research on forced migration in(to) Europe and the way in
which digital technologies and digital connectivity and in particular
social media play a role in the lives of forced migrants. The collection
aims not only to present empirical evidence for discussions about forced
migration and digital connectivity, but also to offer new theoretical
insights on the issue. Approaching forced migration as a complex societal,
political and cultural phenomenon, we seek to consider different aspects of
digital connectivity, such as the use of social media by migrants,
activists and trolls, issues of affectivity, representa
 tion, materiality, mobility, solidarity, political economy and the
communication industry, as well questions related to gender, race,
sexuality, nation, class, geography and religion; identity; diaspora; media
literacy; policy; legislation and human rights.

The label forced migrants includes here asylum seekers, refugees, forced
migrants, stranded migrants, left-behind children and child migrants as
well internally displaced populations amongst others. We welcome scholars
from the (digital) humanities and (computational) social sciences.
Theoretical perspectives may include but are not limited to communication,
media and cultural studies, HCI, postcolonial, feminist, critical race and
intersectional approaches, critical ICT4D, and political economy. Empirical
perspectives may include but are not limited to (virtual) ethnography, big
data, digital methods, fieldwork, action-research, creative methods,
mixed-methods, and survey-research.

Contributions may address the following topics:

* connected migrants in Europe
* social media use in refugee camps and asylum seeker centres
* forced migration and selfie citizenship
* solidarity
* transnational communication and affectivity
* information scarcity
* encapsulation & cosmopolitanization
* differences and similarities different migrant groups (class, gender,
race, age, generation, location)
* digital migrant identities, self-representations and alternative migrant
cartographies
* migrant recruitment and radicalization online
* digital deportability and algorithmic sorting
* surveillance and tracking
* migrant networked learning
* migrant acculturation online
* trolling, extremism and anti-migration protest online
* political economy of migrant connectivity
* digital communication rights
* rethinking communication rights in Fortress Europe
* securitization versus human rights: recentering European policy and
legislation
* ethical considerations and methodological reflections
* digital diasporas
* postcolonial digital humanities

Please send a 1-page (ca. 500 words) abstract outlining the main objectives
of your paper as well as its empirical/theoretical contributions to the
topic of forced migration and digital connectivity to both k.h.a.leurs at uu.nl
<mailto:k.h.a.leurs at uu.nl> and kevin.smets at uantwerpen.be<mailto:
kevin.smets at uantwerpen.be> by 15 April 2016. Decisions by the editors to
solicit full papers will be made in May 2016. The deadline for submitting
full papers (8000 words all inclusive) is 7 December 2016. The
contributions will be published as a Special Collection of the online,
open-access, peer-reviewed journal Social Media + Society, published by
Sage and edited by Prof. Zizi Papacharissi (http://sms.sagepub.com).

Please contact the guest editors if you have any questions about this call
for papers. Informal inquiries about possible topics, themes and proposals
are also welcomed. The guest editors welcome contributions by established
scholars as well as early career researchers.

The special collection is developed in tandem with two events:
1) the symposium "Connected migrants: encapsulation or cosmopolitanism?" (
http://www.knaw.nl/connected-migrants) taking place in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, from 14-16 December 2016. The symposium is financed by the
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
2) two panels on "Forced migration and digital connectivity in(to) Europe",
to be submitted to the Association of Internet Research annual conference,
to be held in Berlin, Germany from 5-8 October, 2016.

Key dates
-15 April 2016: 1-page abstract + 150 word bio
-May 2016: invitations for full papers after selection by guest editors
-7 December 2016: first version of full papers (8000 words all inclusive)
-Late 2017: anticipated publication date

Rationale
Daily, Europeans witness Syrian asylum seekers arriving on the beaches of
Greek and Southern-Italian islands. TV news footage shows how freshly
arrived migrants use smartphones to take selfies or use Skype to happily
announce their safe arrival on European soil to loved ones elsewhere. In
response, prejudicial discourses about migrants have centered on
smartphones; for example, anti-immigrant politicians and various social
media memes frame refugees who own 'luxury' smartphones as less deserving
of asylum. Forced migrants, who are digitally connected, embody Europe's
Janus-faced character in an age when advanced technologies are celebrated
for increasing communication speed and economic prosperity.

As a result of different conflicts worldwide, forced migration has become a
major challenge for Europe. The enormous death toll of migrants at Europe's
borders, the reintroduction of border controls within the Schengen Area,
and the violence and hostility towards refugees and asylum seekers in
several European countries published across various social media platforms
all attest to the way in which the current influx of forced migrants is
overturning European society and political structures. At the same time
mainstream media have devoted significant attention to the situation of
refugees along their migration routes in(to) Europe. Interestingly, these
instances often included digital technologies as central anchoring points
in the lives of refugees. Detailed reports were made of refugees using
smartphones, keeping in touch with their relatives, or documenting their
journey through social media. Other accounts, albeit less frequently,
focused on the ways in which governments s
 eek to deal with forced migration via digital technologies, for instance
by making use of GPS tracking in smartphones, or by setting up online
deterrence campaigns to discourage refugees to migrant to specific
countries.

About the guest-editors
Koen Leurs is Assistant Professor in Gender and Postcolonial studies at the
Graduate Gender Program, Department of Media and Culture Studies at Utrecht
University, the Netherlands. He obtained his PhD in 2012. He is a feminist
internet researcher interested in multiculturalism, race, migration,
diaspora and youth culture using mixed methods and ethnography. He has just
completed a 2 year EU funded Marie Curie research project titled Urban
Politics of London Youth Analyzed Digitally, at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, UK. From February 2016 onwards he will
work on a  3-year Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research funded
research project 'Young connected migrants. Comparing digital practices of
young asylum seekers and expatriates in the Netherlands'. See
www.koenleurs.net<http://www.koenleurs.net>.
Kevin Smets is assistant professor in Communication Studies at the Free
University of Brussels, and a postdoctoral fellow of the Research
Foundation Flanders. He obtained his PhD in Film Studies and Visual Culture
at the University of Antwerp in 2013. He has published widely on diasporic
media cultures, particularly film cultures, in peer-reviewed journals and
edited volumes.


With kind regards,

Koen Leurs, also on behalf of Kevin Smets

Koen Leurs, PhD

Assistant professor Gender and Postcolonial Studies | Department of Media
and Culture Studies | Utrecht University | Muntstraat 2A 3512 EV NL | room
0.05 |
T. + 31 (0)30 253 7844 | www.koenleurs.net<http://www.koenleurs.net>

Latest publications:
Digital Passages. Migrant Youth 2.0. Diaspora, Gender & Youth Cultural
Intersections. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015  (free open
access download: https://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=559550 )

"Social media as postcolonial contact zones. Young Londoners remapping the
metropolis through digital media". In: Ponzanesi, Sandra and Colpani,
Gianmaria, (eds.) Postcolonial Transitions in Europe (pp. 255-276). London:
Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/



-- 
Raquel Rennó
www.raquelrenno.net
http://codingrights.org/
http://www2.ufrb.edu.br/paec/
<http://www.zzzinc.net>https://outrastribos.wordpress.com/
-------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160224/2080faee/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Wed Feb 24 12:02:34 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:02:34 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Nominations for civil representatives - CSTD WG
 on Enhanced Cooperation
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNDyg2U=i7TjiLd1b-xKggnrtK_tq82-7u5gPDMyYh+FaA@mail.gmail.com>

​Dear Best Bits members,


The outcome document of the United Nations General Assembly’s ten-year
review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2015
included a direction for the Chair of the Commission on Science and
Technology for Development (CSTD) to "*establish a working group to develop
recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as
envisioned in the Tunis Agenda*” . This will continue work done by an
earlier CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, that was active from
2013-2014, and current CSTD Chair, Peter Major of Hungary, has indicated
<http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1193&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Commission%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology%20for%20Development>
that
he will establish the new working group in a similar fashion, with 20 UN
Member States and *5 representatives from each of the four identified
stakeholder groups* (business, civil society, intergovernmental
organizations, the technical & academic community).  While the exact time
frame for the working group has not been established, nominees are asked to
consider  a service period of 2016-2017 (and eventually the beginning of
2018).

Hence, I call upon those who are interested to come forward and nominate
themselves through this list *by** March 12th,* after that I will generate
a candidate list with the Bios to be presented in one email  the community
for *3 days endorsement period*.  Based on the endorsement period I will
generate a short listing to be submitted to the NomCom of the Civil Society
Coordination Group by the end of  *March 15th*.

Details of the UNCATAD call: available here
<http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1193&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Commission%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology%20for%20Development>
Please, feel free to share this call with any Independent Civil Society
experts (i.e. those who are not nominated by a civil society network or
other community) who are welcome to send self-nominations directly to the
CSCG NomCom (email address: noncom06 at internetgov-cs.org).

Nominations should include a

   -  short bio of one paragraph,
   -  one paragraph of motivation to be a civil society representative to
   CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation,
   - one paragraph describing substantive proposals or a vision on “how to
   further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda”,
   and
   - one paragraph describing experience or qualifications to represent
   civil society on the  CSTD Working Group.
   - Name, gender, regional/geographical, as well as any appropriate
   affiliation information and contact information should be included as well.

Proficiency in English is necessary for communications within the Working
Group.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best wishes,

Nadira Alaraj

​Liaise of BestBits nominees to the CSCG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160224/a4fc0afd/attachment.htm>

From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org  Fri Feb 26 04:30:55 2016
From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:30:55 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IFLA issues Statement on Right to be Forgotten
In-Reply-To: <C69B26ABD9F7774E810555839215B5890176757C@MFP02.IFLA.lan>
References: <C69B26ABD9F7774E810555839215B5890176757C@MFP02.IFLA.lan>
Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E071222F9@MFP02.IFLA.lan>

Hi everyone

Apologies for cross-posting, I thought this might be of interest to some of you.

Cheers,

Stuart

IFLA issues Statement on Right to be Forgotten
简体中文<http://www.ifla.org/node/10275>
The “Right to be Forgotten” refers to an individual’s ability to request that a search engine (or other data provider) remove links to information about himself or herself from search results. IFLA’s Governing Board has approved a statement on the “Right to be Forgotten” that highlights crucial issues that libraries must consider when participating in discussions about data privacy, and identifies areas of concern that could have negative effects on long-term access to information. IFLA has noted the global application of the Right to be Forgotten within court rulings and legislation and has also issued a background paper to accompany the statement.
The right to be forgotten raises issues for libraries including the integrity of and access to the historical record, freedom of access to information and freedom of expression, and individual privacy. Information on the public Internet may have value for the public or for professional researchers and so should, in general, not be intentionally hidden, removed or destroyed. IFLA finds that freedom of access to information cannot be honoured where information is removed from availability or is destroyed. IFLA accepts the necessity of protecting the privacy of living persons, the confidentiality of business and the security of government information insofar as these goals do not conflict with a higher public good.
IFLA urges library professionals to participate in policy discussions about the right to be forgotten, while both supporting the right to privacy for individual citizens and assisting individuals in their searches for information.  To this effect, library professionals should:

  *   Raise awareness among policy makers to ensure that the right to be forgotten does not apply where retaining links in search engine results is necessary for historical, statistical and research purposes; for reasons of public interest; or for the exercise of the right of freedom of expression.
  *   Fully support access to information for researchers who require personally identifiable information for biographical, genealogical and other research and publications, and advocate to policy makers when policy related to the right to be forgotten may result in the destruction or loss of access to information for these purposes.
  *   Oppose the removal of links from the results of name searches of public figures.
  *   Advocate for transparency in the criteria and processes used by search engines in RTBF decisions.
  *   Continue to promote the practice of name indexing to ensure the continued availability of content for historical and research purposes.
  *   Advise library users, in national or regional contexts where a right to be forgotten regime may be in force, to search the Internet through more than one national instance of a search engine, and with a variety of search terms, so as to maximize their chances of locating desired information that may have been published on the Internet.
  *   Support individuals who request assistance in finding more information on the application of the right to be forgotten to their individual circumstances.
Read the full IFLA Statement on the Right to be Forgotten and the background paper:

  *   Full Statement<http://www.ifla.org/node/10272>

  *   Background paper<http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/statements/rtbf_background.pdf> [PDF]
The statement was jointly drafted by members of the IFLA Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) committee and the Copyright and Other Legal Matters (CLM) committee.
Additional translations of the IFLA Statement on the Right to be Forgotten to follow shortly.

Also see the web version: http://www.ifla.org/node/10273
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160226/497c6923/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Fri Feb 26 09:35:36 2016
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:35:36 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] Conference on Global Internet Interconnection
Message-ID: <D2F5BED8.4C348%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>


CITP Conference on Global Internet Interconnection
Friday, March 11, 2016, Frist Multipurpose Rooms A-B, Princeton University.
This conference will be videotaped and livestreamed
<http://mediacentrallive.princeton.edu/> . If you would like lunch and a
name tag, please RSVP <http://goo.gl/forms/vccT97NPp0>  by Friday, March 4,
2016.The ways that content and Internet service providers interconnect on
the Internet is playing an increasingly important role in the nature of the
Internet. Interconnection affects many aspects of the Internet experience,
including user quality of experience for streaming video, the costs that
consumers bear for Internet access, and the security and privacy of consumer
data.
Read More! <https://citp.princeton.edu/event/interconnection/>
* The rise of streaming video content has introduced significant congestion
along Internet paths, raising questions about the causes of this congestion,
as well as ways to mitigate it.
* The Open Internet Order raises new issues about reasonable network
management practices for managing traffic demand and congestion.
* ³Zero-rating² and sponsored content present important questions and
concerns about citizens¹ access to connectivity and content.
* The rapid proliferation of Internet exchange points in various parts of
the world is changing the characteristics of trans-national Internet
traffic; at the same time, the Internet remains vulnerable to traffic
redirection attacks, sometimes to regions where users do not want the
traffic to go. 
This CITP conference will present a mix of technical and policy perspectives
on interconnection. We will explore the ongoing (and forthcoming) technical
developments in Internet interconnection and explore how these and other
developments relate to the increasingly colorful and nuanced regulatory and
policy questions in this space.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160226/c89812bd/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Sat Feb 27 11:12:18 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:12:18 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [governance] Netmundial Feb 26 Communique
Message-ID: <CAMokdMwGhMnC1gBenVa4_tDwzZzLySNgwcGGRJ45PvSkzVRpqg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

Also adding in a paragraph of the Communiqué

"The current open request for nominations to the Coordination Council is
withdrawn. Once the public consultation is complete, a new nomination
process will begin."

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:55 AM
Subject: [governance] Netmundial Feb 26 Communique
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org


Please feel free to copy to other lists – here is a Communique from the
Netmundial Initiative meeting held in Madrid on February 26.


https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-inaugural-coordination-council-madrid-spain-26-february-2016?platform=hootsuite

My own take is that the meeting decided on some sensible changes, while
still needing to clarify others, and I welcome the institutional home
within CGI.br if that goes ahead . Much discussion  centred on the
replacement of the Inaugural Co-ordination Council – suggestions included a
smaller flatter structure, a renaming (Advisory Group was favoured by
some); this is going to be the subject of a public consultation in coming
weeks before this is finalised.

I also personally welcome the idea, promoted by Wolfgang Kleinwachter, of a
NMI+5 conference in 2019, and look forward to discussions on how that might
take place.

More on these ideas as they develop in coming months.

Ian Peter

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160227/0627cb92/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Sat Feb 27 11:47:18 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:47:18 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Nominations for civil representatives -
 CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <CAJdpWNDyg2U=i7TjiLd1b-xKggnrtK_tq82-7u5gPDMyYh+FaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJdpWNDyg2U=i7TjiLd1b-xKggnrtK_tq82-7u5gPDMyYh+FaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMw+zSO-vYfGjjECxYj4uOz5j8=o3Qe2osfowFHFjzMq4g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Bestbits members

Re-sending this call to anyone who might be interested

All the best

Renata


On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ​Dear Best Bits members,
>
>
> The outcome document of the United Nations General Assembly’s ten-year
> review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2015
> included a direction for the Chair of the Commission on Science and
> Technology for Development (CSTD) to "*establish a working group to
> develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as
> envisioned in the Tunis Agenda*” . This will continue work done by an
> earlier CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, that was active from
> 2013-2014, and current CSTD Chair, Peter Major of Hungary, has indicated
> <http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1193&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Commission%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology%20for%20Development> that
> he will establish the new working group in a similar fashion, with 20 UN
> Member States and *5 representatives from each of the four identified
> stakeholder groups* (business, civil society, intergovernmental
> organizations, the technical & academic community).  While the exact time
> frame for the working group has not been established, nominees are asked to
> consider  a service period of 2016-2017 (and eventually the beginning of
> 2018).
>
> Hence, I call upon those who are interested to come forward and nominate
> themselves through this list *by** March 12th,* after that I will
> generate a candidate list with the Bios to be presented in one email  the
> community for *3 days endorsement period*.  Based on the endorsement
> period I will generate a short listing to be submitted to the NomCom of the
> Civil Society Coordination Group by the end of  *March 15th*.
>
> Details of the UNCATAD call: available here
> <http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1193&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Commission%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology%20for%20Development>
> Please, feel free to share this call with any Independent Civil Society
> experts (i.e. those who are not nominated by a civil society network or
> other community) who are welcome to send self-nominations directly to the
> CSCG NomCom (email address: noncom06 at internetgov-cs.org).
>
> Nominations should include a
>
>    -  short bio of one paragraph,
>    -  one paragraph of motivation to be a civil society representative to
>    CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation,
>    - one paragraph describing substantive proposals or a vision on “how
>    to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis
>    Agenda”, and
>    - one paragraph describing experience or qualifications to represent
>    civil society on the  CSTD Working Group.
>    - Name, gender, regional/geographical, as well as any appropriate
>    affiliation information and contact information should be included as well.
>
> Proficiency in English is necessary for communications within the Working
> Group.
>
> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nadira Alaraj
>
> ​Liaise of BestBits nominees to the CSCG
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160227/b4cc6810/attachment.htm>

From gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in  Mon Feb 29 06:17:23 2016
From: gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in (Gangesh S. Varma)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:47:23 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Accountability Blog Series
Message-ID: <CAEKkfMvXHe+yNbJqR0tfP8stkpT8Kc5hg3n89AXvx1gULTGqow@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

[Apologies for cross posting]

Here
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/ccwg-accountability-on-the-road-to-marrakech-part-5/>
is our next post in our series on the ICANN accountability process
examining briefly examining the key discussions on Recommendation 7:
Strengthening ICANN's IRP.

An index
<https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/on-the-road-to-marrakech-icann-accountability-in-transition-blog-series/>to
our previous and upcoming posts in this series can be found here.
As always we welcome your inputs and feedback.

Best regards

Gangesh

-- 

Gangesh Sreekumar Varma | Senior Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi
| Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 8447159123 | Fax:
(+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org
<http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi
<https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi> . @gangeshvarma
<https://twitter.com/gangeshvarma>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160229/08220b7d/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Mon Feb 29 10:26:06 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:26:06 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNCRbYwp61uUVyScSmWBj+FXR9QXnoHOn6K-jbNC6OfX7g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Best Bits members,

In this email, I'm forwarding to you the official call from of the CSCG.

As I stated in my earlier email:

to those who are interested to come forward and nominate themselves through
Best Bits list *by March 12th,*.  after this date,  I will generate a
candidate list with the Bios to be presented to you all to have a *3 days
of endorsement period*.  Based on the endorsement I will generate a short
listing and submitted to the NomCom of the Civil Society Coordination Group
by the end of  *March 15th*.

I highlighted below a sentence in bold to bring the attention to those from
developing countries.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best wishes,

Nadira Alaraj

Liaise of BestBits nominees to the CSCG ​


---------- Forwarded message ----------

Call for nominations for CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation

The Civil Society Coordination Groups  (CSCG) is seeking civil society
nominations from developed and developing countries as well as from
economies in transition, all geographic areas, and policy orientations to
serve as civil society representatives on the United Nations Commission on
Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation (WGEC), the announcement for which can be found at
http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1193. More
information about the WG proposal can be found at
http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Presentation/CSTD_2015_s11_Major_en.pdf .
While the exact timeframe for the working group has not been established,
nominees are asked to consider  a service period of 2016-2017 (and
eventually the beginning of 2018).

Peter Major, the Chair of the CSTD, has appointed CSCG as the focal point
for appointments of Civil Society representatives on the WGEC, and CSCG has
correspondingly established a nominations committee (Nomcom) for this
selection task. We are seeking one CS representative from each of the five
geographical areas: Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, GRULAC, and WEOG.
The Chair has requested that we include, to the extent  possible, selection
of former members of the previous working group in order to ensure the
continuation of institutional memory, and the point in the UNGA resolution
to “take into consideration the work that has been done on this matter so
far.” While remote participation will most probably be available, he also
notes that remote participation “may not be very efficient in case of
intensive debates and drafting”. *In addition, he notes that** “As for
funding, the Secretariat of the  CSTD will try and find means to facilitate
participation from developing countries”.*

Nominations should be submitted to the CSCG’s nominations committee via the
email address nomcom06 [at] internetgov-cs [dot] org no later than 15 March
2016, or via one of the member coalitions (IGC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, APC)
following their procedures. Independent civil society experts (i.e. those
who are not nominated by a civil society organisation or network) are
welcome to send self-nominations directly to the CSCG nomcom by the same
deadline.

Nominations should include a short bio of one paragraph, one paragraph of
motivation to be a civil society representative to the WGEC, one paragraph
describing substantive proposals or a vision on “how to further implement
enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda”, and one paragraph
describing experience or qualifications to represent civil society on the
WGEC. Name, gender, regional/geographical, as well as any appropriate
affiliation information and contact information should be included as well.
Proficiency in English is necessary for communications within the WGEC. It
is understood that nominees must be able to attend (most) meetings as
established by the WGEC.

About CSCG and the current nomcom:

.

The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a
coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making
civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives
of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive
Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and
Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN.

As per the CSCG's procedures (available at
http://internetgov-cs.org/procedures), for any selection task, the CSCG
will determine selection criteria and announce them as part of a call for
candidates, which will then be circulated as appropriate, in this case as
broadly as possible across as many different constituencies as possible.

Selection criteria for WGEC:

--substantive proposals or a vision on “how to further implement enhanced
cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda”;

--experience in or qualifications to represent civil society on the WG;

--English language proficiency;

all to be evaluated using the information submitted with the nomination.
Final selection will consider gender and geographical location, to ensure
an appropriate balance.

All members of the CSCG nomination committee are required to consider the
interests of civil society as a whole, and not just those of their own
coalition, in determining appropriate representatives. The nomination
committee will take into account geographic and gender balance in
determining their final selections, while considering also the need for the
breadth of viewpoints/worldviews represented within civil society to be
represented.

Please feel free to contact us if you need further information or to
discuss how we can work together to ensure our mutual objective to ensure
the best possible civil society representation on this Working Group. The
co-chairs of CSCG, Ginger Paque and Ian Peter, are available for inquiries.

The members of the CSCG nomcom for the CSTD WGEC are:

Deirdre Williams, representative of the Civil Society Internet Governance

Caucus (IGC), and recent Co-Coordinator of the IGC

Chat Garcia Ramilo, representative of the Association for Progressive

Communications (APC), and Deputy Executive Director of APC

Ginger (Virginia) Paque, non-voting Co-Chair of CSCG, and with Diplo

Foundation, Internet Governance Programmes (contact: virginiap [at]
diplomacy [dot] edu)

Ian Peter, non-voting Co-Chair of CSCG, independent (contact: ian [dot]
peter [at] ianpeter [dot com)

Nadira Alaraj, representative of Best Bits

Norbert Bollow, representative of the Just Net Coalition (JNC), and

Co-Convenor of JNC

Robin Gross, representative of ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

(NCSG), and member of the NCSG Executive Committee

Information on the Previous WGEC

Previous representatives from civil society

Mr. Carlos A. Afonso, Executive Director, NUPEF Institute

Ms. Avri Doria, Independent Researcher

Ms. Grace Githaiga, Associate, Kenya ICT Action Network

Ms. Joy Liddicoat, Programme Leader for Human Rights on the Internet,
Association for Progressive Communications

Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change

Documents produced during or following previous WGEC meetings can be found
on the CSTD website. Of particular interest:

http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=330

http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396

http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=425

http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=545

http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610

.


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160229/7fffb0ff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CallfornominationsforCSTDWGonEnhancedCooperation.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 7917 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160229/7fffb0ff/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CallfornominationsforCSTDWGonEnhancedCooperation.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 107307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160229/7fffb0ff/attachment.pdf>

From raquino at gmail.com  Mon Feb  1 23:10:02 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:10:02 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
 recommendations
In-Reply-To: <CAJdpWNDtVkbWFiGLEwgDhqeKWsS9C2ySr4vfpK0yO3HVyWfPrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJdpWNDtVkbWFiGLEwgDhqeKWsS9C2ySr4vfpK0yO3HVyWfPrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMycxKm-WHupAtGRX12OdC32nQaJZXYHhN7xVDWQLPYKcg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

I am very grateful to be on this shortlist, it is also a great call
for responsibility and engagement to the regions and sectors I
represent.
As it has been through all this process, all candidates are simply
great and the activity of the NomCom could not have been more
transparent and efficient.
Whichever roads this leads us, I'm sure it will be on the right path
to more and more representation of CS in global debates.

All the best

Renata


(Apologies for cross-posting)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Best Bits members,
>
> I'm pleased to pass to you below the nominations and recommendations of the
> CSCG nominating committee with regards to the civil society representation
> on MAG 2016.
>
> The CSCG Nomcom is co-chaired by Ginger (Virginia) Paque and Ian Peter,
> and the team composed of
> Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits),
> Analia Aspis (Internet Governance Caucus),
> Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
> Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), and
> Parminder Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition).
>
> Hoping the CSCG nomcom recommendations would be considered for the
> enhancement of selection for the civil society representations on MAG.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nadira Alaraj
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Date: Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:14 AM
> Subject: [cs-coord] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
> recommendations
> To: CSCG NomCom for 2016 MAG appointments <nomcom05 at internetgov-cs.org>,
> cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org
>
>
> (text below is also attached in document form)
>
>
>
> Dear Chengetai, IGF Secretariat, and MAG selection committee(s),
>
>
>
> First, we wish to thank you for your past co-operation with us in aiming to
> ensure the best possible representation for civil society in the IGF
> Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). We were pleased that you were able to
> accept all but one of our suggested nominations last year, and also our
> suggestions for speakers at IGF. We look forward to further strengthening
> this collaboration, in line with various recommendations calling for greater
> legitimacy, transparency and stakeholder involvement in such processes
>
>
>
> The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a
> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making
> civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives
> of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive
> Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and the
> Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these
> groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well
> as a great number of individuals. In addition, the CSCG receives
> recommendations of non-affiliated individuals and groups who chose to voice
> their endorsements through the CSCG mechanism. The CSCG represents the five
> largest groupings of civil society organisations addressing Internet
> governance issues. We also work in collaboration with other initiatives in
> the UN, but also outside of it (such as the Netmundial Conference in Brazil
> in 2014 and the subsequent Netmundial Initiative).
>
>
>
> We are pleased to forward the following civil society endorsements for
> candidates for the 2016 MAG renewal.
>
>
>
> The Nomcom considered 16 names submitted via our networks, which are
> attached as Appendix 1. For the record, we also asked to be privy to any
> other civil society nominations forwarded to you from other sources, and,
> for full transparency, all civil society stakeholder group applications,
> which we ideally should have considered fully and without discrimination,
> but we were told this was not possible.  However if there are other names
> you are considering, we offer our services to give you confidential
> assessment of any such candidates.
>
>
>
> In completing our task, we note that three candidates designated by you as
> civil society representatives have terms ending this year; two from LAC
> region and one from Asia. (Fatima Cambronero, Desiree Zachariah, and Subi
> Chaturvedi)
>
>
>
> In considering replacements, we have looked at a number of considerations,
> the most important of which at this particular time, are:
>
>
>
> First, to restore the balance of LAC region representation, to replace
> retiring civil society members, we recommend:
>
>
>
> Julian Casasbuenas. Julian is a member of the Association for Progressive
> Communications (APC), and has been attending IGF since 2006.  He was
> involved in the organization of LAC regional IGF meetings and participated
> actively as a reporter and speaker in these events. In 2012 his
> organization, Colnodo, was co-organizer with .CO Internet of the Fifth IGF
> LAC meeting that was held in Bogotá Colombia.
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro. Renata is currently a professor in the IT Campus at
> Quixadá City in Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. In 2014, she was a
> researcher in social development, technology and education at Business and
> Economics Faculty (FEAAC) at Federal University of Ceará (UFC). For the last
> decade, she has followed the Internet governance debates such as regional
> IGFs and ICANN53 participation as a fellow, Brazilian Internet School of
> Governance 2014 fellow, South School of Internet Governance 2015 fellow,
> LACRALO ALS Nexti participant, and NCUC participant in ICANN.
>
>
>
> Our second and third major considerations are to increase voices speaking
> for the geo-political global south, and to add to the level of experience in
> internet governance matters of civil society participation. We believe this
> can be done with one specific candidate. i.e.:
>
>
>
> 3. Norbert Bollow. Norbert has a background in mathematics, physics and IT,
> and he also has many years of experience in civil society activism on a wide
> range of information society topics including advocacy for human rights and
> Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). He has participated in the
> consultations that preceded the first IGF and he has since then participated
> in many IGFs, including several times as a workshop organizer. He has been a
> co-coordinator of Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Norbert is
> currently a co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition
> http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-members, an international civil society
> coalition of 35 organisations and networks, most of them South based, with a
> focus on demands that the Internet must advance human rights and social
> justice, and that Internet governance must be truly democratic.
>
>
>
> Our fourth consideration is to gain representation from the MENA region,
> which currently has no civil society representation; and at the same time to
> strengthen our African presence. To this end we endorse:
>
>
>
> 4. Rasha Abdulla.  Dr. Rasha A. Abdulla is Associate Professor (tenured) and
> Past Chair of Journalism and Mass Communication at the American University
> in Cairo. She has a Ph.D. in Communication (December 2003) from the
> University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. She is the proud recipient of
> several teaching and research awards. Her current research interests focus
> on the Internet as a medium. Her doctoral dissertation was the first large
> scale academic study of the uses and gratifications of the Internet among
> Arab students in Egypt...
>
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration of these candidates. Please note that, in
> addition to addressing matters of geographical and gender balance, civil
> society, like other stakeholders, needs to consider geopolitical balance and
> the need to ensure that all stakeholder voices are represented. What might
> appear to be simple changes to the representation we suggest can be quite
> problematic for us, and result in either imbalance in representation or in
> inappropriate candidates being selected. To avoid these problems which have
> occurred in the past, we do suggest that, should you be looking at
> appointing anyone as a civil society representative not on our list of
> endorsements, you discuss this in confidence with our coordinators. In
> addition to any names you might have received individually, we recognise
> that there are a number of excellent candidates from distinct geographic
> regions who applied to be nominated through CSCG who we were unable to
> include in our limited number of endorsements above, that might come into
> consideration in such discussions.
>
>
>
> Given the investment in the important process of (perceived) legitimacy,
> balance, transparency and consensus, we feel strongly that selections should
> be done with our collaboration. This enhanced co-operation and consultation
> can assist to ensure the best possible civil society representation, a goal
> we all share. This also addresses the recommendation of the Working Group on
> Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by UN General Assembly, seeking
> ‘self-management’ of stakeholder representative process by respective
> stakeholder groups.  We are open for further discussion on this point and
> other relevant recommendations of the mentioned Working Group.
>
>
>
> Finally, we do think that, in the light of recommendations in the mentioned
> CSTD WG and in Netmundial, calling for greater legitimacy, transparency and
> stakeholder involvement in such processes, it would be appropriate in coming
> months to review the IGF MAG selection processes, to align them more with
> emerging best practice in ensuring stakeholder representation and also
> overall transparency. We offer our services to work with you and other
> stakeholder representative organisations towards this objective, which we
> consider imperative to have in place for the 2017 MAG selection process.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Virginia Paque and Ian Peter
>
> Non-voting Co Chairs CSCG
>
>
>
> Nomcom members: Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits), Analia Aspis (Internet Governance
> Caucus), Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN), Chat Garcia
> Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), Parminder Jeet Singh
> (Just Net Coalition)
>
> The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and
> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside
> bodies. Our procedures can be viewed at
> http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> APPENDIX ONE
>
> CANDIDATES EVALUATED BY CSCG NOMCOM
>
>
>
> Julian Casasbuenas (LAC)*
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro (LAC)*
>
> Norbert Bollow (WEOG)*
>
> Rasha Abdulla (Africa)*
>
> Renata Avila (LAC)
>
> Wisdom Kwasi Donkor (Africa)
>
> Isaque Manteiga Joaquim (Africa)
>
> Olevie Kouami (Africa)
>
> Glenn McKnight (WEOG)
>
> Jeremy Malcolm (WEOG)
>
> Joseph Marc Antoine Ridore (Africa)
>
> Grigori Saghyan (WEOG)
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Asia-Pacific)
>
> AbdulRasheed Tamton (Africa)
>
> Arsene Tungali (Africa)
>
> Deidre Williams (LAC)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CS-coord mailing list
> CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org
> http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Tue Feb  2 03:33:57 2016
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 08:33:57 +0000
Subject: [bestbits]  Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
 recommendations
In-Reply-To: <CAJdpWNDtVkbWFiGLEwgDhqeKWsS9C2ySr4vfpK0yO3HVyWfPrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJdpWNDtVkbWFiGLEwgDhqeKWsS9C2ySr4vfpK0yO3HVyWfPrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPGs-TRtp3hiUhTcNmnSP31vS=vk=B6Jwjcne6cex+Q+rg@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations and good luck to us all short listed.

On Monday, February 1, 2016, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Best Bits members,
>
> I'm pleased to pass to you below the nominations and recommendations of
the CSCG nominating committee with regards to the civil society
representation on MAG 2016.
>
> The CSCG Nomcom is co-chaired by Ginger (Virginia) Paque and Ian Peter,
> and the team composed of
> Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits),
> Analia Aspis (Internet Governance Caucus),
> Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
> Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), and
> Parminder Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition).
>
> Hoping the CSCG nomcom recommendations would be considered for the
enhancement of selection for the civil society representations on MAG.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nadira Alaraj
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Date: Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:14 AM
> Subject: [cs-coord] Fw: Civil Society MAG 2016 endorsements and
recommendations
> To: CSCG NomCom for 2016 MAG appointments <nomcom05 at internetgov-cs.org>,
cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org
>
>
> (text below is also attached in document form)
>
>
>
> Dear Chengetai, IGF Secretariat, and MAG selection committee(s),
>
>
>
> First, we wish to thank you for your past co-operation with us in aiming
to ensure the best possible representation for civil society in the IGF
Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). We were pleased that you were able
to accept all but one of our suggested nominations last year, and also our
suggestions for speakers at IGF. We look forward to further strengthening
this collaboration, in line with various recommendations calling for
greater legitimacy, transparency and stakeholder involvement in such
processes
>
>
>
> The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a
co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making
civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives
of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive
Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and the
Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these
groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well
as a great number of individuals. In addition, the CSCG receives
recommendations of non-affiliated individuals and groups who chose to voice
their endorsements through the CSCG mechanism. The CSCG represents the five
largest groupings of civil society organisations addressing Internet
governance issues. We also work in collaboration with other initiatives in
the UN, but also outside of it (such as the Netmundial Conference in Brazil
in 2014 and the subsequent Netmundial Initiative).
>
>
>
> We are pleased to forward the following civil society endorsements for
candidates for the 2016 MAG renewal.
>
>
>
> The Nomcom considered 16 names submitted via our networks, which are
attached as Appendix 1. For the record, we also asked to be privy to any
other civil society nominations forwarded to you from other sources, and,
for full transparency, all civil society stakeholder group applications,
which we ideally should have considered fully and without discrimination,
but we were told this was not possible.  However if there are other names
you are considering, we offer our services to give you confidential
assessment of any such candidates.
>
>
>
> In completing our task, we note that three candidates designated by you
as civil society representatives have terms ending this year; two from LAC
region and one from Asia. (Fatima Cambronero, Desiree Zachariah, and Subi
Chaturvedi)
>
>
>
> In considering replacements, we have looked at a number of
considerations, the most important of which at this particular time, are:
>
>
>
> First, to restore the balance of LAC region representation, to replace
retiring civil society members, we recommend:
>
>
>
> Julian Casasbuenas. Julian is a member of the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC), and has been attending IGF since 2006.  He was
involved in the organization of LAC regional IGF meetings and participated
actively as a reporter and speaker in these events. In 2012 his
organization, Colnodo, was co-organizer with .CO Internet of the Fifth IGF
LAC meeting that was held in Bogotá Colombia.
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro. Renata is currently a professor in the IT Campus
at Quixadá City in Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. In 2014, she was a
researcher in social development, technology and education at Business and
Economics Faculty (FEAAC) at Federal University of Ceará (UFC). For the
last decade, she has followed the Internet governance debates such as
regional IGFs and ICANN53 participation as a fellow, Brazilian Internet
School of Governance 2014 fellow, South School of Internet Governance 2015
fellow, LACRALO ALS Nexti participant, and NCUC participant in ICANN.
>
>
>
> Our second and third major considerations are to increase voices speaking
for the geo-political global south, and to add to the level of experience
in internet governance matters of civil society participation. We believe
this can be done with one specific candidate. i.e.:
>
>
>
> 3. Norbert Bollow. Norbert has a background in mathematics, physics and
IT, and he also has many years of experience in civil society activism on a
wide range of information society topics including advocacy for human
rights and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). He has participated in the
consultations that preceded the first IGF and he has since then
participated in many IGFs, including several times as a workshop organizer.
He has been a co-coordinator of Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
Norbert is currently a co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition
http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-members, an international civil society
coalition of 35 organisations and networks, most of them South based, with
a focus on demands that the Internet must advance human rights and social
justice, and that Internet governance must be truly democratic.
>
>
>
> Our fourth consideration is to gain representation from the MENA region,
which currently has no civil society representation; and at the same time
to strengthen our African presence. To this end we endorse:
>
>
>
> 4. Rasha Abdulla.  Dr. Rasha A. Abdulla is Associate Professor (tenured)
and Past Chair of Journalism and Mass Communication at the American
University in Cairo. She has a Ph.D. in Communication (December 2003) from
the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. She is the proud
recipient of several teaching and research awards. Her current research
interests focus on the Internet as a medium. Her doctoral dissertation was
the first large scale academic study of the uses and gratifications of the
Internet among Arab students in Egypt...
>
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration of these candidates. Please note that,
in addition to addressing matters of geographical and gender balance, civil
society, like other stakeholders, needs to consider geopolitical balance
and the need to ensure that all stakeholder voices are represented. What
might appear to be simple changes to the representation we suggest can be
quite problematic for us, and result in either imbalance in representation
or in inappropriate candidates being selected. To avoid these problems
which have occurred in the past, we do suggest that, should you be looking
at appointing anyone as a civil society representative not on our list of
endorsements, you discuss this in confidence with our coordinators. In
addition to any names you might have received individually, we recognise
that there are a number of excellent candidates from distinct geographic
regions who applied to be nominated through CSCG who we were unable to
include in our limited number of endorsements above, that might come into
consideration in such discussions.
>
>
>
> Given the investment in the important process of (perceived) legitimacy,
balance, transparency and consensus, we feel strongly that selections
should be done with our collaboration. This enhanced co-operation and
consultation can assist to ensure the best possible civil society
representation, a goal we all share. This also addresses the recommendation
of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by UN
General Assembly, seeking ‘self-management’ of stakeholder representative
process by respective stakeholder groups.  We are open for further
discussion on this point and other relevant recommendations of the
mentioned Working Group.
>
>
>
> Finally, we do think that, in the light of recommendations in the
mentioned CSTD WG and in Netmundial, calling for greater legitimacy,
transparency and stakeholder involvement in such processes, it would be
appropriate in coming months to review the IGF MAG selection processes, to
align them more with emerging best practice in ensuring stakeholder
representation and also overall transparency. We offer our services to work
with you and other stakeholder representative organisations towards this
objective, which we consider imperative to have in place for the 2017 MAG
selection process.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Virginia Paque and Ian Peter
>
> Non-voting Co Chairs CSCG
>
>
>
> Nomcom members: Nadira Alaraj (Best Bits), Analia Aspis (Internet
Governance Caucus), Robin Gross (Non Commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN),
Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications), Parminder
Jeet Singh (Just Net Coalition)
>
> The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and
conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside
bodies. Our procedures can be viewed at
http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures
>
>
>
>
>
>
> APPENDIX ONE
>
> CANDIDATES EVALUATED BY CSCG NOMCOM
>
>
>
> Julian Casasbuenas (LAC)*
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro (LAC)*
>
> Norbert Bollow (WEOG)*
>
> Rasha Abdulla (Africa)*
>
> Renata Avila (LAC)
>
> Wisdom Kwasi Donkor (Africa)
>
> Isaque Manteiga Joaquim (Africa)
>
> Olevie Kouami (Africa)
>
> Glenn McKnight (WEOG)
>
> Jeremy Malcolm (WEOG)
>
> Joseph Marc Antoine Ridore (Africa)
>
> Grigori Saghyan (WEOG)
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Asia-Pacific)
>
> AbdulRasheed Tamton (Africa)
>
> Arsene Tungali (Africa)
>
> Deidre Williams (LAC)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CS-coord mailing list
> CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org
> http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>

-- 
WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member
Web/OGPL Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160202/ea9691b8/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Feb  2 07:22:49 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:22:49 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] UN expert urges TPP countries not to sign the TPP
 without committing to human rights and development
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeM-CJzFQ=1Nt2cSbiC+D4C351XK9OPfb4_JhiLobT0JQ@mail.gmail.com>

--------------



*UN expert urges Pacific Rim countries not to sign the TPP without
committing to human rights and development *



GENEVA (2 February 2016) – United Nations human rights expert Alfred de
Zayas called on Governments not to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
without reaffirming their human rights treaty obligations and their recent
pledges to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

“The TPP is fundamentally flawed and should not be signed or ratified
unless provision is made to guarantee the regulatory space of States,” said
the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable
international order in a statement* made public today.

Mr. de Zayas called for a new generation of trade agreements for the 21st
century, which would incorporate human rights and development into their
provisions, stressing that “the TPP is based on an old model of trade
agreements that is out of step with today’s international human rights
regime.”

The expert’s appeal comes on the eve of the gathering of the trade
ministers in Auckland, New Zealand, on 4 February 2016, to sign the TPP, a
trade agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries that will strengthen the
position of investors, transnational corporations and monopolies at the
expense of the public, and will impact negatively on labour standards, food
security, health and environmental protection.

Mr. de Zayas reiterated his call on the UN system and Governments across
the world “to put an end to free trade and investment agreements that
conflict with human rights treaty obligations,” made last year during the
presentation of a report on free trade and investment agreements to the UN
Human Rights Council.

“Trade is not an end in itself, but must be seen in the context of the
international human rights regime, which imposes binding legal obligations
on States, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights,” he said.

“Trade agreements are not ‘stand-alone’ legal regimes, but must conform
with fundamental principles of international law, including transparency
and accountability,” Mr. de Zayas stressed. “They must not delay,
circumvent, undermine or make impossible the fulfilment of human rights
treaty obligations.”

In his statement, the Independent Expert expressed concern that, despite
“enormous opposition by civil society worldwide, twelve countries are about
to sign an agreement, which is the product of secret negotiations without
multi-stakeholder democratic consultation.”

“The options are not to sign the TPP as it stands, as civil society
demands, or not to ratify it, which is the responsibility of democratically
elected parliaments,” the expert noted. “Should the TPP ever enter into
force, its compatibility with international law should be challenged before
the International Court of Justice (ICJ)”.

“If a public referendum were held in all twelve countries concerned, it
will be solidly rejected,” Mr. de Zayas stated.

*(*)* Check the Independent Expert’s public statement:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17005&LangID=E

ENDS

*Mr. Alfred de Zayas (United States of America) was appointed as the first
Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable
international order by the Human Rights Council, effective May 2012. He is
currently professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy.
Learn more, log on to: *
*http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IntOrder/Pages/IEInternationalorderIndex.aspx*
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IntOrder/Pages/IEInternationalorderIndex.aspx>

*Read the Independent Expert’s 2015 report to the UN Human Rights Council
(A/HRC/30/44): *
*http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Pages/ListReports.aspx*
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Pages/ListReports.aspx>


*Read the Independent Expert’s 2015 report to the UN General Assembly on
the incompatibility of ISDS with human rights norms (A/70/285): *
*http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/285*
<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/285>

*The Independent Experts are part of what is known as the Special
Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest
body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general
name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms
that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all
parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis;
they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are
independent from any government or organization and serve in their
individual capacity.*

*For more information and media requests, please contact Ms. Karin
Hechenleitner (+41 22 917 9636 <%28%2B41%2022%20917%209636> / *
*khechenleitner at ohchr.org* <khechenleitner at ohchr.org>*) or write to *
*ie-internationalorder at ohchr.org* <ie-internationalorder at ohchr.org>

For *media inquiries* related to other UN independent experts:
Xabier Celaya, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 /
xcelaya at ohchr.org)

*For your news websites and social media:* Multimedia content & key
messages relating to our news releases are available on UN Human Rights
social media channels, listed below. Please tag us using the proper handles:
*Twitter:* @UNHumanRights <http://twitter.com/UNHumanRights>
*Facebook:* unitednationshumanrights
<https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights>
*Instagram:* unitednationshumanrights
<http://instagram.com/unitednationshumanrights>
*Google+:* unitednationshumanrights
<https://plus.google.com/+unitednationshumanrights/posts>
*Youtube:* unohchr <https://www.youtube.com/user/UNOHCHR>








-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160202/1ebd3aa9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 02107.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5854 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160202/1ebd3aa9/attachment.gif>