[bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and what do you need to know?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Feb 20 07:26:22 EST 2016
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>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list