[IRPCoalition] Fwd: Fwd: Re: OECD - what is going on? and what do you need to know?

Marianne Franklin m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
Mon Feb 8 15:59:48 EET 2016

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] OECD - what is going 
on? and what do you need to know?
Date: 	Sun, 7 Feb 2016 15:27:25 +0530
From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	Tamir Israel <tisrael at cippic.ca>, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org>
CC: 	Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Dear Tamir

Thanks for your response, which is the most well argued and 
comprehensive one that I have ever received for this question that I 
have asked several times in the last many years. So thanks again.

There is another important aspect of your email that I would like to 
respond to but let me first do so for

    "Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing
    like this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the
    CIRP proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a
    later stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command
    and control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions.
    Most, if not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal
    related to this particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact
    that it would bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply
    creating yet one more policy-making venue."

I will come to IT for Change part the last bec it is the least important 
thing here.

The "command and control" aspect of CIRP that you point to chiefly is 
about the ICANN oversight part (the treaty facilitating aspect being 
common to OECD and CoE committees and thus is symmetric ). Please note 
that the CIRP proposal clearly says that it has picked CIRP's mandate 
items from the institutional models suggested by the Working Group on 
IG's report. This report clearly says that the oversight role is the 
role currently undertaken by US Dept of Commerce. Obviously, therefore 
the CIRP proposed only to take up that role which is currently played by 
the US Dept of commerce.

The question then that I have for you; how is ICANN working under the 
oversight of US government not a 'command and control' structure, and I 
hear it always referred to as a multistakeholder structure, but if the 
same role was played together by all countries it became a 'command and 
control' structure?  (The current IANA transition process not being 
relevant here bec it was not envisaged at the time that CIRP was 
proposed and then roundly criticised).

Second part: "these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP 
proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later stage 
(perhaps too late?)" (from your email below.

I have said this before, the proposal itself said, we are open to 
discussing, the Indian gov rep at Nairobi IGF, immediately after the 
proposal as made, said, we are open to discuss and change it, and at the 
next CSTD meeting, India again said we are open to change it and invited 
ideas. No response, other than, the whole thing should simply be 
abandoned. Most importantly, India actually separated the oversight part 
from that for 'other public policy making' in its submission to the UN 
Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation whose precise mandate was to come 
up with an appropriate global Internet governance related institutional 
architecture, esp for 'public policy making' plus ICANN oversight. Civil 
society members were in there in that WG, and those outside made written 
submissions, over two rounds, but any proposal to have an OECD kind of 
Internet related public policy mechanism remained fully ignored, and 
considered as multilateralist and therefore evil...

So, I cannot see how you and others decide that it "was too late"... The 
right to make the rules of game, and what is the right time, what is the 
right way to propose a thing, and so on, is one of the biggest forms of 
hegemonic power.... I dont accept it. The proposal still stands today, 
you, and others, need to comment on it as it is being proposed to you, 
as I am proposing to you, and not take the cover of, that was the wrong 
time, and the wrong way, and so on...

As I said, the WG on enhanced cooperation is being reconstituted, you 
and others here are global players in the IG space by choice and 
profession; my question to you all is, what is your response to my 
proposal (forget others) to develop a Internet related public policy 
development mechanism inside the UN "on the exact model" as it happens 
in the OECD. I will await yours and other people's response. And if I do 
not get it, keep asking this question. This is about the denial of the 
right of self determination and right of democratic participation of the 
huge majority of the world's population (non OECD countries). A right, 
which in view is, even prior to all other rights, a right which 
determines what rights are...

Lastly, your comment on ITfC's positions: yes, we have always asked for 
an OECD like Internet related policy mechanism in the UN, in the exact 
model of how it works in the OECD, where it gets called as a 
multistakeholder model. For ICANN oversight we has for a different kind 
of model. Not only ITfC but JNC (Just Net Coalition) has made similar 
demands (see our submissions to the the NetMundial Conference)... But 
both IT for Change and JNC get branded as pro - multilateralism and much 
of the dominant civil society here by contrast as pro 
multi-stakeholderism, while, as should be obvious from this discussion, 
the *real and only difference* is that we refuse to work with US- and 
OCED-centric 'global' policy and IG models and ask instead to have all 
countries equally involved, while preserving the same amount of 
multistakeholder participation as it exists in extant models today. (I 
say this with full authority, and am ready to stand by it.) But the fact 
that the mentioned labels have been so successfully affixed and 
sustained speaks of the power of hegemonic discourse, even within the so 
called civil society... I think we need to be doing better than that. We 
need to be able to discuss things opening, and provide answers to the 
questions that get asked about our positions. If even civil society does 
not do it, who would.


On Sunday 07 February 2016 05:40 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
> I also apologize for the delayed response, and appreciate your 
> detailed answer.
> I definitely think there is room for improvement in the OECD 
> policy-making process and particularly on how it manages 
> multi-stakeholder input -- I would not want to leave a contrary 
> impression. There have certainly been opportunities along the way to 
> improve this process (some missed, some not - it's most often raised 
> on a case by case basis, which has led to some improvements over time, 
> at least in my opinion).
> I agree that many/most UN bodies do not generate binding documents or 
> activities (the ITU being a key exception), but to my recollection the 
> opposition to CIRP revolved around those elements of the proposal that 
> /did/ envision this type of binding action, which is far different 
> from what the OECD does.
> Specifically at issue from the CIRP proposal as it was presented in 
> the UN:
>   * Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and
>     operational functioning of the Internet, including global
>     standards setting;
>   * Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on
>     Internet-related public policies;
>   * Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary;
> All of these envision binding action. It may be true that some 
> branches of the OECD do, indeed, lead to binding treaty-making but 
> this is neither part of the CDEP's mandate nor has it ever been 
> something the committee has done historically in the context of 
> Internet policy. By contrast, facilitating treaties was a key listed 
> objective for the CIRP. Likewise, arbitration and dispute resolution 
> is not only an operationally binding activity, but is typically only 
> employed where there are hard underlying legal obligations (ie 
> treaties) between states that can lead to disputes requiring adjudication.
> Finally, the proposal envisioned CIRP oversight of not just ICANN, but 
> all of the "bodies responsible for technical and operational 
> functioning of the Internet". This would include, for example, the 
> IETF and other technical standards bodies alongside ICANN.
> The OECD multi-stakeholder model is not ideal, it is probably closer 
> to multi-lateral than most folks would like, except that the civil 
> society stakeholder group can decide not to endorse any reports or 
> policy instruments it generates. As these instruments are not really 
> binding anyways, that form of dissent can be relatively meaningful 
> because it undermines the legitimacy of the policy instrument and 
> legitimacy is really the only currency it has. As a venue I, at least, 
> have found it worthwhile engaging in, even though as with all policy 
> processes it's had its ups and downs. Still, it's not ideal and wholly 
> unsuited to generating binding policy as opposed to just generating 
> policy. It is nowhere near robust enough for generating treaties or 
> overseeing all the technical communities and ICANN.
> Now, it may be that the IT 4 Change vision for CIRP was nothing like 
> this, or that these elements could have been stripped from the CIRP 
> proposal -- and your account suggests this was proposed at a later 
> stage (perhaps too late?) -- but as presented these command and 
> control elements seemed as integral if not primary functions. Most, if 
> not all of the commentary regarding the CIRP proposal related to this 
> particular aspect of the proposal, which is the fact that it would 
> bring about multi-lateral control as opposed to simply creating yet 
> one more policy-making venue.
> Best,
> Tamir
> On 1/31/2016 10:13 AM, parminder wrote:
>> Dear Tamir
>> A happy 2016 to you as well, and thanks for your engagement with this 
>> important issue.
>> Sorry for delay in coming back. Was preoccupied...
>> On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:52 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>> If I recall, objections to the 2011 multi-lateral, inter-state 
>>> Internet governance body actually arose from the fact that the 
>>> proposal did /not/ follow the OECD model.
>> I did some background work towards developing the 2011 CIRP proposal 
>> , and it was quite independent, and in the open. IT for Change gave a 
>> submission 
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/EC_statement-IT_for_Change2010.pdf> 
>> to 2010 UNDESA consultation on enhanced cooperation, and then did a 
>> background paper 
>> <http://www.itforchange.net/ibsa_RiodeJaneiro_Sep2011> for IBSA 
>> meeting in Rio de Janeiro (both are public documents), which sought a 
>> UN Body on Internet policies taking from the OECD model. This OECD 
>> model was specifically discussed in both these papers. The mandate of 
>> CIRP 
>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf> 
>> was very similar to that of OECD Committees, including the Committee 
>> on Digital Policies (except on one, significant point to be discussed 
>> later). The stakeholder consultation process of CIRP was exactly 
>> taken from the OECD model, plus a very important additional element 
>> that "IGF will provide inputs to the CIRP" (OECD having no such 
>> system and thus being deficient to that extent in its 
>> multistakeholder content)
>> See the mandate of OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy here 
>> <http://www2.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=8997&Lang=en&Book=>, 
>> and that of its predecessor CICCP here 
>> <http://webnet.oecd.org/OECDGROUPS/Bodies/ShowBodyView.aspx?BodyID=1837&BodyPID=7425&Lang=en&Book=> 
>> . These committees were always supposed to make policy, develop 
>> policy frameworks, and coordinate policies of their members. Policy 
>> development is the central objective of OECD, and this is written 
>> upfront on its Internet economy page 
>> <http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/> 'The OECD focuses on the 
>> development of better policies..."
>> When OECD inter gov agreements and treaties are developed, like they 
>> exist in areas of tax avoidance, anti-bribery, and so on, the 
>> respective committees facilitate such agreement/ treaty development 
>> process.
>> UN CIRP, as per India's proposal in 2011, was supposed to basically 
>> be doing all this work. And, as can seen from a reading of the 
>> proposal, with the same multistakeholder model, only reinforcement 
>> through formation of an organic linkage with the IGF and inviting its 
>> inputs. So, I will like to ask you, how has India's CIRP proposal 
>> become a multilateral, inter-state, IG body, while OECD's CDEP is a 
>> multistakeholder, harmless body? That was my original question.
>> Now, if you want to  focus all your argument against UN CIRPs on just 
>> one of its mandate, which was of oversight over ICANN, lets discuss it.
>> Firstly, when IT for Change proposed a OECD like model we suggested 
>> just policy development like OECD does and not ICANN oversight for 
>> this body.... But I can see that when India was making a proposal to 
>> the UN, it had to keep in mind one of the most contested global IG 
>> issue, of the US's unilateral oversight over ICANN, and the express 
>> mandate of the WSIS that"all governments should have an equal role 
>> and responsibility for international Internet governance and for 
>> ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet" 
>> (para 68), which directly speaks to equal oversight role over ICANN, 
>> if there has to be one. Now, India did not have time to make an 
>> elaborate separate proposal for oversight transition, and put that 
>> role under the proposed new Committee for Internet Related Policies. 
>> In doing so, it picked up the language from 2 Models of IG 
>> architecture put forward by the (multistakeholder) Working Group on 
>> IG <http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf> .
>> Further, do note that the India proposal as read out in the UN 
>> clearly called
>> "for the establishment of an open­ended working group under 
>> the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for 
>> CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of 
>> all 
>> Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek tofill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept
>> of Enhanced Co­operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda"
>> So, everyone was open for suggestions. One should have just said, 
>> remove the oversight role from this committee and the rest is ok... 
>> Within a few months, at the next CSTD meeting, India again said, tell 
>> us what issues you have with our proposal and lets discuss them. No 
>> response. Then in another few months, on its own, in its submission 
>> to the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, India separated the issue and 
>> proposed mechanism for general Internet related public policy 
>> development (as OECD does) and the oversight role, on which they 
>> asked for a separate discussion and possible mechanism.
>> But their proposal remained as much of a taboo as before, to Northern 
>> government and big business, but also to the tech community and most 
>> of the civil society... And this is the hypocrisy that I point to.
>>> The OECD model is to produce non-binding soft law in a 
>>> multi-stakeholder context.
>> This is simple misuse of language, driven by partisan hegemonic 
>> constructs, that people nilly willy fall prey to.... I have linked to 
>> OECD documents above... See the mandates and activities of UN bodies, 
>> like UNESCO <http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco>, WHO 
>> <http://www.who.int/about/en/>, UNDP 
>> <http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us.html>, 
>> and if you are going for a committee (which is *not* the dominant 
>> mode of UN working, it mostly functions through separate bodies as 
>> listed) then maybe you can see this one 
>> <http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> ....  Most 
>> of these do more or less exactly the same stuff as OECD committees 
>> do... How often have you seen hard law coming out of the UN . And 
>> then OECD also produces binding agreements... What and how is what 
>> OECD does 'soft' and what UN does 'hard'... There is no IMHO basis 
>> for your statement and claim.
>> As for for your phrase 'in a multistakeholder context' (referring to 
>> OECD), that is key to my question. How do call the proposed UN CIRP 
>> be not multistakeholder and the working of OECD committees 
>> multistakeholder??? I am sure you would have read the CIRP proposal, 
>> but if you havent it is again here 
>> <http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf>, 
>> and has exactly the same stakeholder consultation mechanism as OECD's 
>> CDEP.
>> It is just not you who in your in your opening line of this email 
>> denounced the proposed CIRP as multilateral inter-state body, and are 
>> calling the OECD model as multilateral, when, I repeat it for the 
>> hundredth time, both have, by design, the same stakeholder 
>> participaiton model. Almost everyone does.... An ISOC/ tech community 
>> rep recently called the OECD process as "multistakeholderism at work" 
>> ( http://www.internetac.org/archives/category/contributions ). Such 
>> adulatory references, calling the OECD process, multistakeholder, are 
>> commonplace....  But the same people call a proposal form developing 
>> countries with the same stakeholder participation model as 
>> multilateral, inter gov, and so on...I think this is extremely 
>> unfair. And a great example of hegemonic discourse at work, extremely 
>> efficiently.
>>> On digital issues, civil society has direct input into that 
>>> policy-making process, and this has been the case since the Seoul 
>>> Ministerial in 2009 
>> I am on OECD's CS advisory group's elist and fully know how such 
>> inputting takes place, and how much of it gets accepcted... But in 
>> any case, as mentioned, exactly the same process was proposed for the 
>> UN CIRP, including UN funded meetings of advisory groups preceding 
>> the inter gov council meetings, as happens with OECD.
>>> (the recent formulation of the Committee on Digital Economy which 
>>> you refer to was a change in name only, nothing changed functionally 
>>> with respect to the nature or scope of digital issues undertaken or 
>>> civil society's role therein).
>> I know that formulation of CEDP was a change in name only, but 
>> proposals were invited " to improve its working methods" ( 
>> http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/conocenos/pleno/comisiones/mario-german-fromow-rangel/ocde.pdf 
>>   )  while changing its name in 2014.  What I want to know is whether 
>> any civil society group asked for change in this Committees 
>> stakeholder consultation processes to making it 'really 
>> multistakeholder', if the current procedures are not considered so 
>> (which is the only excuse to decry UN CIRP proposal). I know that 
>> nothing like this happened. Why?
>>> The key to the OECD is that it generates lots of policy reports or, 
>>> at most, soft law instruments 
>> As said, it makes as much policy as UN bodies do.. Using language in 
>> such a partisan manner is IMHO not quite correct. It is simply the 
>> hegemonic construction which powerful forces work to make and sustain.
>>> -- nothing binding comes out of it. In this context, it's useful for 
>>> civil society to engage with other stakeholders to attempt to 
>>> resolve policy issues. We definitely do not have the final say on 
>>> these policies, nor do we have a veto on par with state parties.
>> Exactly the same model was suggested for UN CIRP...
>>> But the OECD operates on a multi-stakeholder principle, 
>> If it does, that UN CIRP was also a multistakeholder proposal, of 
>> being exactly the same stakeholder participation design.
>>> meaning they will keep working until views of all member states and 
>>> of the four stakeholder groups (which include, as relevant: the 
>>> business community, the technical community, a trade union community 
>>> and on telecommunications and digital issues, civil society). To 
>>> date there has been only one single occasion where a policy document 
>>> was adopted by the OECD over the sustained objections of civil society.
>> That was the single most important document produced by the committee 
>> "Principles for Internet policy making"... On others issues too I 
>> know, they listen but the inter gov committee finally decides. And I 
>> am sure that much has been written in OECD policy docs that does not 
>> pass full civil society muster.... You are over-blowing the 
>> camaraderie.  And if there  is indeed some kind of a 'temporary and 
>> limited congruence' of libertarian civil society and tech community 
>> with the Northern countries on Internet issues, that has a different 
>> basis, and is essentially temporary and limited. Such congruence 
>> often takes place between civil society and developing country views 
>> in most global social, economic and cultural polity issues. Lets not 
>> get into that discussion. 9But if you want to, I am happy to )..
>>> Even that policy documents, though, have no binding effect on 
>>> anyone. In practice, many, many OECD policies remain largely 
>>> unimplemented by OECD member states. They tend to form more of a 
>>> reference or normative statement that is at most useful as one 
>>> single input into domestic policy-making processes (I note 
>>> incidentally that I do a lot of national policy development and that 
>>> in my experience most OECD policies tend to be more useful to civil 
>>> society than to other segments of society, for whatever that's worth).
>> Every single thing is true of UN bodies as well... Please do read in 
>> detail the mandates and working of the UN bodies that I referenced 
>> and others (like UNCTAD), which I am sure you have been reading about.
>>> My understanding of the proposed 2011 UN governance body at the time 
>>> (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was wholly different.
>> I hope my above references corrects it.....
>>> It was to be based on a command and control model. 
>> It was 80 percent OECD's Internet policy like body, and 20 percent 
>> had the problematic oversight role, which (1) pursuant to Tunis 
>> Agenda references India needed to put somewhere in its proposal, (2) 
>> India was always ready to discuss it, and (3) in less than a year 
>> after the initial proposal, in its proposal to WG on Enhanced 
>> Cooperation, India split the proposal to separate the oversight 
>> mechanism issue... However, the attitude to, and name calling vis a 
>> vis, its proposal for a Un platform to develop Internet related 
>> policies, and similar proposals by groups like mine, did not move an 
>> inch... It was the same diabolical multilateral,, inter gov, 
>> proposal, out to control the Internet...
>> This is simply a pro rich country and anti developing country view, 
>> which does not behove the global civil society.
>>> It envisioned something similar to ICANN (which, unlike the OECD, 
>>> directly implements its policies by its control of the root, etc), 
>>> but with governments at the helm as opposed to the stakeholder model. 
>> Oversight of ICANN has been completely distinct from ICANN proper 
>> since the WSIS, the WGIG report and the Tunis Agenda... It is 
>> outrageous to suggest that CIRP proposal aimed to replace ICANN. And 
>> even if there is a hurry to misunderstand and mis-characterise 
>> proposals from developing country (given their under-capacity to 
>> defend them), it is easy to see that the wording on 'oversight' in 
>> the Indiam proposal came from the WGIG report, where the distinctions 
>> between oversight and actual ICANN operations was clearly made, over 
>> much diligent discussions in an entirely multi-stakeholder fashion.
>>> Indeed, one element of the proposal would have been to place ICANN 
>>> (and perhaps some of the other technical communities) under the 
>>> control of the new UN governance body. This is very different from 
>>> the OECD soft policy-development process.
>> Yes, you mean the 'oversight element', which issue has been discussed 
>> in detail above, and to repeat, was removed by subsequent Indian 
>> proposals.
>> I  am happy to discuss this further, and provide an further 
>> information or clarification that you might require.
>> And sorry for the long email..... I wanted to remove what has become 
>> a deep rooted confusion, (to the extent I can :) )...
>> Best regards
>> parminder
>>> All the best (and happy 2016 !),
>>> Tamir
>>> On 1/28/2016 8:59 AM, parminder 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 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> 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
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       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.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20160208/6c0cd5da/attachment.html>
-------------- 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 mailing list