[IRPCoalition] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: OECD - what is going on? and what do you need to know?
info at irpcharter.org
Fri Feb 5 14:07:08 EET 2016
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going
on? and what do you need to know?
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:38:07 +0100
From: Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
Reply-To: Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
CC: Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Hi Parminder - sorry for the delay in getting back to you -
Admittedly, I don't have a very robust understanding of what's been
going on in the OECD space, so I could be missing some crucial piece of
the puzzle and appreciate the context you provided. But my comment is
broader anyway. I disagree that you have to deploy a governance agenda
in every advocacy effort you are a part of (which is how I understand
what you're saying). If one thinks that making a short term gain on,
say, cybersecurity, will be undermined by pushing a governance argument
at that point, they may decide not to bring it up. I don't think this is
contradictory at all, just shows that people have different priorities
I can see how if you take governance as the underlying problem, you
could argue that any policy-specific efforts that ignore governance
issues will in the end be unsustainable. But A) some may disagree that
governance is the underlying problem, and B) even it it was, it doesn't
follow that all efforts that don't put it at the forefront of their
agendas are at odds with it. Hope this clarifies the point I was trying
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
> 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!?
>> Warm wishes,
>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> 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
>>>>> Best, Carol
>>>>> · OECD Sets the Scene for Future Decades of ICT Policy Development
>>>>> · Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
>>>>> · 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:
>>> 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:
>> 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:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
More information about the IRP