[bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going on? and what do you need to know?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jan 28 08:59:50 EST 2016
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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160128/c74cb98d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list