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

Sun Nov 24 12:55:45 EST 2013

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 <javascript:;> im Auftrag von
> Adam Peake
> Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <javascript:;>; Andrea Glorioso
> Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <javascript:;>&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
> > >>
> > >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > 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/20131124/23b9c8d9/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