[governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Dec 1 11:00:11 EST 2013


On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Here is a factual account of what happened
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/

One really wonders why we are not able to settle something which is a 
simple matter of fact.... Yes, civil society groups did not initially 
sign these principles but later signed a latter version .

In Dec 2013, if someone says, 'OCED's Internet policy making 
principles', what is meant is the final version issues by  the OECD 
Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is superseded 
by the Council document. And civil society groups did sign the latter 
Council document .... 
http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php

  That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which has 
got this long thread running...

parminder


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] on 
> behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM
> *To:* Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso; 
> parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of 
> India to the WGEC
>
> To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs 
> did endorse a set of principles produced within the OECD was 
> challenged. It seems to me - and, unless I misinterpret the relevant 
> messages, confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number 
> of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles which was 
> acceptable to them.
>
> Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance of 
> such principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within 
> "restricted" environments, especially when such principles / 
> policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, on 
> the approach to be taken towards broader settings.
>
> Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD 
> principles or on the related debate re: broader settings.
>
> P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small IG 
> circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so 
> clear on the details of who signed what, when and for which reason.
>
> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>     Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement
>     was IPR and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two
>     principles was ere outspoken but ignored by an article in the
>     Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when
>     CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did not change
>     it. In contrary, as the statement - re-distributed by Andrea -
>     says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around
>     the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the
>     lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD
>     debate did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of
>     the Council of Europe principles - which was negotiated in
>     parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD language and
>     got the full endorsement by all parties.
>
>     w
>
>
>
>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>     Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>     im Auftrag von Adam Peake
>     Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07
>     An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx>; Andrea
>     Glorioso
>     Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt;
>     &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <UrlBlockedError.aspx>&gt,
>     Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the
>     Government of India to the WGEC
>
>     I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't.  Please, just
>     read the documents, it's pretty clear.
>
>     Adam
>
>
>
>     On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>
>     > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process,
>     CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm
>     happy to stand corrected by those who know more.
>     >
>     > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php
>     >
>     > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet
>     Policy Making
>     > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC
>     welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy
>     Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which
>     reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet.
>     >
>     > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative
>     decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues
>     and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined
>     to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High
>     Level Meeting of June 2011.
>     >
>     > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to
>     develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in
>     greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded
>     in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens
>     the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens.
>     >
>     >
>     > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote:
>     >
>     > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote:
>     >
>     > >
>     > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote:
>     > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I
>     want to add my 2 cents too!
>     > >>
>     > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the
>     principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights
>     provision.
>     > >>
>     > >
>     > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them.
>     > >
>     >
>     >
>     > No Parminder, you're wrong.  Civil society (CSISAC: Civil
>     Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the
>     OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011
>     <http://www.oecd.org/internet/innovation/48289796.pdf>)  Read the
>     document.
>     >
>     > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is.
>     >
>     > Adam
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive
>     merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy
>     processes. I only spoke about their procedural  aspects - like
>     inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That
>     these processes
>     > >
>     > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and
>     > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder ,
>     than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like
>     India's CIRP proposal.
>     > >
>     > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with
>     this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for
>     instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its
>     processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS +
>     10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the
>     most participatory of processes that I have ever seen.
>     > >
>     > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above
>     problem of global governance - something which is a constant
>     refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South .
>     How can we simply dismiss this concern.
>     > >
>     > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's
>     Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it
>     is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I
>     propose that we write to them, that
>     > >
>     > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and
>     other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have
>     implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy.
>     > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy
>     frameworks on other countries  - if they indeed think/ know that a
>     particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they
>     should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and
>     accordingly develop policies regarding it .
>     > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same
>     principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for
>     global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should
>     clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of
>     Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same
>     or different than what they > >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard
>     Street, London EC2A 4LT
>     > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>     andrewpuddephatt
>     > >> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org>
>     > >>
>     > >> From: parminder [
>     > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>     > >> ]
>     > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38
>     > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt
>     > >> Cc:
>     > >>
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>     &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
>     > >> ,
>     > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the
>     Government of India to the WGEC
>     > >>
>     > >> Andrew
>     > >>
>     > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I
>     am not quite sure that is a good thing to do.
>     > >>
>     > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the
>     proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed
>     debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions
>     presented by me/ my organisation  which is also quite fair because
>     we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say
>     whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments
>     by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group
>     responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably
>     have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should
>     I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my
>     very first email on the issue.
>     > >>
>     > >> my responses below...
>     > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>     > >>
>     > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but
>     occasionally I feel
>     > >>
>     > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for
>     those who are engaging in it....
>     > >>
>     > >>
>     > >>> ____________________________________________________________
>     > > 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
>     <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     > --
>     > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with
>     myself. Keep it in mind.
>     > Twitter: @andreaglorioso
>     > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
>     > LinkedIn:
>     http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > 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.go
>     <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. 
> Keep it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/29466879/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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


More information about the Governance mailing list