[governance] CSTD

Mon May 24 09:26:21 EDT 2010

Having had a (limited) involvement, and before we become too enamoured of
the OECD "opening up" we should see it for what it is. The OECD has opened
up certain "technical" committees to "expert" CS and other participation ...
What that means in practice is that they are looking for expert knowledge on
the cheap i.e. for free, from civil society (and other) folks.  What that
means in turn is that effectively only those with significant institutional
funding i.e. the major funded NGO's with sufficient interest and resources
to finance and contribute expert knowledge can access meetings where the
agenda has been pre-set by the inter-governmental management structure.

>From a (fairly limited and fairly technical) major funded NGO/CS perspective
I can see some advantages to that, in specific and mostly
specialized/technical areas--standard setting for one... From the
perspective of CS or non-governmental actor participation in broader areas
of governance, hmmmm....

M

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:07 AM
To: parminder
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD

Parminder 

On May 24, 2010, at 12:14 PM, parminder wrote:

While I have some clarifying comments on Anriette's detailed report (thanks
for it) and subsequent remarks on it by others,  it may be better to take
some specific example and build our discussion around it. Bill's comments
provides us one such example, that of OECD, as the kind of forums which work
and with which we should engage rather than wasting our energies on
something as dangerous and elusive as EC :) .

Sigh...I of course did not say we shouldn't be unconcerned with EC, but
rather that the OECD experience indicates that in some cases it's possible
to open up actually existing processes.  

And if the IGF is to them principally a bargaining chit to use on other
chessboards and not someplace they want to really engage in multistakeholder
decision making, one has to wonder whether trying to turn it into a decision
making body isn't a bit chimeric and a poor use of scarce CS energies.  I'd
rather see us pushing to open up to participation and accountability those
bodies that they do take seriously and want to use for decision making.  It
can be done, sometimes...look at the OECD, a somewhat underrated
achievement.  This is why I thought we should be objecting more to the
distorted reading of EC as pure intergovernmentalism with the ITU dedicated
group held up as exhibit A, despite TAIS 71's clear statement that EC is to
be MS.

First of all, obviously we from the developing countries cannot be looking
up to OECD Internet policy related mechanisms as our deliverance. In fact,
OECD's Internet policy related activities rather than being the solution may
be a big part of the problem for developing countries. I have said this so
many times that it wont harm saying it once more -  OECD's policies would
soon become the default global norms, and we from the developing countries
are not at all happy to be subject to norms and policies that are developed
without our full democratic participation.

I of course did not say that people from developing countries should look to
OECD Internet policy related mechanisms for deliverance.  And I have long
made the point in writing, talks etc that deals worked out at that level can
and do set de facto global rules. 

I fail to understand why this lack of global democracy does not violate some
people's sense of fairness and justice as does the perceived lack of
multistakeholderism (MSism) ins yet-to-be global forums for global Internet
policies does. Can anyone provide me an answer to that.

But let us not be distracted. My principal point here is that if OECD's
model of developing Internet related policies, with its effectiveness and
its structures of stakeholder participation, is seen as exemplary, why dont
we propose the same model but including all countries.

I have never heard of any such a proposal. 

This was my original proposal for a new forum made at the UNICT TF global
forum in NYC in March 2004, later published in Don MacLean's edited book.

But it is never too late. Are we all here willing to propose a new global
Internet policy forum modeled exactly on OECD's Internet related policy
making processes, but with equal participation of all countries, and with
exactly the same stakeholder participation model.

That looks to me as a perfect enhanced cooperation model to suggest. Bill,
what do you say. 
What is good for OECD countries, why shouldnt it be good for all countries
together!

I long favored this, although developments since have led me to wonder, per
Anriette and Jeanette, whether it could have a chance of being successful,
much less agreed to.  Still, as an effort to think through the "so what do
we want" question,  it's probably worth considering as a baseline model.

Although I personally think it should be possible to suggest an even more
participative EC model than the present OECD model,  if we appear to be so
happy with the OECD model lets go with it. I am sure developing countries
can be brought around. Lets float the idea and see what actors speak against
it, and which for. And you would get the real picture of where we really
stand today vis a vis global Internet policy regimes, or the absence of
them.

I  only know broadly about the OECD Internet policies related model. Others
who know more can please elaborate - how it works, how it is structured for
participation etc. Lets take it as a base for developing a 'enhanced
cooperation'  model for global Internet policy making and propose it to all
stakeholders. This is quite the time for such a proposal to be made.

I mean to present the above proposal rather seriously. And I hope others in
this discussion do respond to it.

Parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100524/91982359/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t