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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Feb 21 12:39:46 EET 2016

see a correction below

On Sunday 21 February 2016 02:55 PM, parminder wrote:
> Thanks Tamir
> You are chipping at my central argument from many different
> directions, in a manner which IMHO is tangential to the main issue I
> propose for consideration. However, I will still respond to all of
> them. But so that the main issue does not get lost in all the endless
> discussion of the main traits and fine distinctions between many
> different bodies, which btw would always be there, I present my main
> proposal again below.
> Leave aside whether OECD's CDEP (Committee on Digital Economy Policy)
> facilitates treaties or not, and other such finer points; my
> proposition is simple. Are you, and others here, ready to have a
> Internet policy body in the UN which *exactly* of the same mandate (I
> am sure that you wont have problem in adding a more bit of social
> mandate to the economic one, that is harmless, right) as the OECD's
> CDEP and have the *exact* same method of stakeholder engagement/
> participation?
> And as said we have facing us the UN WG on enhanced cooperation which
> should begun functioning soon where civil society would need to put
> its proposals and respond to others (BTW, do note that this UN WG has
> much better form of other stakeholder participation that any OECD or
> CoE body, and it is UN... I am ready to hear anyone who disagrees with
> this claim.)
> Therefore, I hope CS groups here will have a response to this question.
> And indeed, if the response is no, I would like to know, why so..If
> the justification is that they are not ready for a multilateral (ML)
> Internet policy related body in the UN (as Lea says), the next
> question is, are these groups ready to make a statement to the
> forthcoming OECD ministerial that OECD's CDEP is a ML body and not a
> MS one, and this is no way to make Internet policies, more so when OED
> countries use the MSism ruse to block any progress towards development
> of Internet related policies, and/or the connected work of
> discussions, analysis, and so on.

meaning, blocking it in the UN (while they do it themselves)

> ...........................   .............................  
> I have put a line above to separate the above clear questions from the
> discussion below, so that their specificity and clarity is not lost.
> Now, I'd try to respond to your various points.
> 1. You say OECD's CDEP does not have the mandate to facilitate
> treaties. (Apart from, as above, I am ready to have a UN committee
> with exactly the same mandate, treaty facilitation or not) do remember
> that treaties are specific instruments bearing the authority of their
> signatories. They may employ any convenient body for help, and later
> to be the custodian of them. None of OECD committees have an express
> mandate of treaty facilitation , but OECD has done treaties, whereby
> it is obvious that the corresponding committee in any case facilitated
> it. Correspondingly, there is no doubt that if and when OECD wants to
> have a treaty on an Internet related issue, it will be facilitated by
> CDEP ( I read CDEP's objectives 2 and 3-i as quite enough to take such
> a role)... Now, see for instancethe mandate of the UNESCO
> <http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15244&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>,
> there is no mention of treaties, but then UNESCO has facilitated
> numerous treaties. So, I consider your this point as rather weak.
> 2. Next, you take the defence that CDEP has been around for a long
> time, and so its case is different. As you know, it was established
> 2-3 years ago changing the name and (considerable) part of the mandate
> of an earlier committee. Apart from other considerable changes of
> mandate, do you note, and I made this point earlier, that it is the
> first time that it declares that it makes Internet policy in a
> multistakeholder (MS)fashion. Was this change of mandate discussed
> with its CS advisory committee? if not, in any case it is a very bad
> case of MS non participation. And if inputs were indeed taken, then
> apparently the CS advisory group must have agreed that CDEP is a MS
> body... That happened just 2-3 years ago. Not too long ago! Is the CS
> advisory group not answerable then why they agreed to let CDEP call
> itself MS but around the same time and afterwards the same CS groups
> would not accept a similar arrangement at the UN as MS... Is this not
> hypocrisy... What kind of arguments can hide that fact. And therefore,
> CDEP has always been there itself is  weak argument in this particular
> argument.
> 3. You say CoE clearly makes treaties, but then for it you put forward
> other defences. Apart from the fact that OECD also makes treaties even
> if less often that CoE, this is a slippery argument to change the
> defences for CoE to another set of unsubstantiated and weak one... OF
> course UN also has its human rights instruments and human rights
> courts. Just last week it is a UN body which gave its judgement on
> Assange's inappropriate confinement and not a CoE body.... But then
> there will always be some difference between one thing and another,
> one situation and the next. But the arguments in this case too IMHO do
> not add up..
> 4. You (and others) give all kinds of arguments in defence of OECD and
> CoE, but it is very disappointing that you miss (side step?) the
> simple, straight -forward, and powerful issue of democracy, and equal
> representation of all people, regions and countries. Is it a small
> point which we can just brush aside? In no other area of global
> governance, global civil society does such a thing. Quite the
> opposite, they are mostly solidly with developing regions and
> countries, where the most excluded and marginalised reside. Is it not
> civil society's job to preponderantly represent these people? And if
> someone has to be given the benefit of doubt, it has to be these
> people, and the regions and groups from which they come, but the club
> of rich countries.
> 5. You have begun to bring in the argument of human rights record of
> different countries and regions ( I expect this argument to become
> more prominent as other defensive arguments fall by the wayside). Yes,
> it is important, but we also know the human rights violations by the
> rich countries, even in civil and political rights areas, just think
> Snowden and Assange, but then there is this big area of social,
> economic and cultural rights, which it seems we just want to fully
> forget. It is the neoliberal order being put together by the rich
> countries that is responsible for untold miseries and deprivations the
> world over, and the Internet and IG are strongly implicated in this
> process. What about these violations of rights, and who is doing them
> most? Forums where all countries are present have certainly a much
> better record than rich country clubs if we look at the whole set of
> human rights together. I am happy to discuss this point further is you
> like.
> 6. Lastly, you contend, "...the civil society presence at the OECD is
> global. You, yourself, are a member of the stakeholder group, let's
> not forget.". I am there just to observe, and do not undertake any
> participation at all. (If I did, id be arguing these things over there
> which I havent.) Because I dont find this manner of global inclusion
> legitimate, when all countries are not represented, and only the
> richest ones are. It is anathema to me. I did accept the invitation to
> the Seoul OECD ministerial and was there when the CS advisory body was
> formed. I insisted on the inclusion of this sentence in the CS Seoul
> declaration, which is supposed to be the founding doc of the OECD's CS
> committee. "Global Internet policy-making should involve equal
> participation of all people, countries, and stakeholders." However, I
> can see that apparently the group has completely forgotten about this
> part of their founding document, and plans to do nothing about it. I
> do keep reminding them often, as I am doing currently, but with no
> response.
> regards
> parminder
> PS: Since IRP group is also cc ed, let me remind everyone that this
> group is right now inputting into CoE's IG strategic doc, so maybe
> they may want to tell them what is the right way in their estimation
> of MS and not ML Internet policy making as the CoE (like everyone
> else) does today...
> On Sunday 21 February 2016 03:48 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>> Thanks again for the detailed reply and again I apologize for the
>> delayed response. I'll respond to some of what you say in line, but I
>> have not been following WSIS10+, so will leave those elements for
>> others to address..
>> On 2/8/2016 10:02 AM, parminder wrote:
>>> The first point in my response was about the nature of UN based
>>> proposals for Internet related policy making, which I insist remain
>>> on the table. we especially cannot dodge them in view of the new UN
>>> WG on enhanced cooperation which will begin working later this year.
>>> In that regard my question is:
>>> What is the response of civil society groups here to the proposal to
>>> institute an Internet policy development model in the UN which is
>>> exactly, repeat, exactly, the same as the CDEP process in the OECD
>>> (whereby the only difference will be that instead of the 34 richest
>>> countries making policy, there will the full list of 190 or so, or a
>>> rotating smaller representative group of them, plus a clear
>>> institutionalised linkage to the IGF)?
>>> The second, complimentary question is, as follows:
>>> The only logical and defensible reason for not accepting the above
>>> proposal that I can think of is that such a proposal about does not
>>> represent a mutistakeholder model of Internet policy making, and the
>>> major civil society groups and persons here will only accept a
>>> multistakeholder model of policy making (whatever it is).
>>> Fair enough. In that case, is there a proposal to make this case to
>>> the forthcoming OECD ministerial organised around the work of its
>>> Committee on Digital Economy Policy (which is OECD's Internet policy
>>> making organ)? I mean to at least clearly say, in a specific
>>> statement,  to the ministerial that we do not accept their model of
>>> Internet policy making, since it is not multistakeholder (and also
>>> offer a multistakeholder option, which if you refuse their model, of
>>> course they'd ask for). This is the first ministerial after the CDEP
>>> was formed with a re-adopted mandate, which for the first time
>>> claims that it develops policy through a 'multistakeholder
>>> process'.  Since, the civil society groups failed to raise this
>>> issue when the CDEP was formed 2 years back and they were asked for
>>> their inputs, would they want to now correct their mistake, and take
>>> this issue up in the forthcoming public meeting of the OECD ministrial?
>>> If not, why so? Where do their multistakeholderist energies, which
>>> are to be seen to be believed when the arena is the UN, disappear in
>>> front of the comity of the richest countries of the world ? Whom
>>> they join in the first place in the UN arena to sing
>>> multistakeholderist paeans. Why not expose this extreme hypocrisy of
>>> theirs, which is so easily done, they would not have words to come
>>> back with, which, excuse my slipping into cynicism, I btw i suspect
>>> is why most groups dont do it. we cant do such things to our
>>> friends, right!
>> CDEP has been around for a very very long time, it was merely renamed
>> from ICCP a few years back, without any real change in orientation or
>> scope of operation. There have been several ministerials over the
>> years, and in some of these, governance issues were front and center.
>> For example, in the Seoul Ministerial (which has not even reached its
>> 10 year milestone yet, to put things in perspective) governance was
>> the main topic of discussion and where civil society's standing and
>> role at CDEP (then ICCP) was formalized, providing an official and
>> independent channel for civil society input into OECD
>> internet-related policy-making. This was a big step, and one that was
>> taken not too long ago. Governance is not a central issue in each and
>> every ministerial, nor should it be.
>> In addition, in my own experience, governance issues have come up at
>> CDEP many times, but mostly on a case by case basis where the process
>> has broken down one way or another. This has led to some
>> improvements, eg as I noted in my previous email, sometimes the civil
>> society stakeholder group can formulate its differing views regarding
>> an OECD policy paper, and these will be incorporated into the formal
>> release of the document. Given the types of things that come out of
>> CDEP, this is a useful and effective remedy. Those types of tweaks
>> have been effective, and the OECD has (again in my experience) been
>> generally responsive, which has likely further forestalled calls for
>> broad-ranged changes.
>> I should note briefly that in terms of civil society / stakeholder
>> engagement, at least, the civil society presence at the OECD is
>> global. You, yourself, are a member of the stakeholder group, let's
>> not forget. Finally, while I'm not sure there is an immediate need
>> for tectonic shifts in the CDEP's stakeholder model as it's evolved
>> in the past few years since the seoul ministerial, I would still not
>> recommend the model for any body that has a treaty-coordination role.
>>> In the CS advisory group to the OECD's CDEP, one person did propose
>>> that it should seek greater multistakeholderism in CDEP's policy
>>> making processes, but this proposal was made light of by others,
>>> seeking focus on substantive issues instead!! Why such shyness with
>>> the OECD, when the same groups are never short on reprimanding UN
>>> bodies - extant or proposed, on this matter?
>> I'm not very involved in this ministerial, but I have seen one
>> proposal to have a panel on governance. It came late in the day, so I
>> don't know if it'll make the cut, but the point is this one panel
>> would not be enough to dramatically fix any deficiencies in the OECD
>> process. I would think the proposal for dramatic reform you mention
>> would have to be carefully formulated ahead of time, and this
>> groundwork has not been done. Perhaps it's because the OECD has
>> tended to be fairly responsive to multi stakeholder concerns when
>> these come up, as noted above. These case by case improvements to the
>> stakeholder model have proven an efficient and effective way of
>> advancing matters, so the impetus for dramatic change so soon on the
>> heels of the seoul ministerial has been low.
>>> The job of civil society is to speak up to the most powerful, not be
>>> in convenient alliances with them.
>>> Also, CoE's Internet policy mechanism is "right now" seeking civil
>>> society input into their IG strategy.... It makes policy frameworks
>>> in a similar manner as OCED (but apparently with less formal
>>> stakeholder systems). Why not tell them, this is what we think is
>>> multistakholder policy making, and we would expect CoE to adopt it.
>>> That is our input, or at least one of the inputs, to their IG
>>> strategy (It is CoE's treaty on cyber crime that is often pushed
>>> post facto as the 'gold standards' for developing countries to
>>> accede to. A cursory search throws up another one on 'automatic
>>> processing of individual data'. But somehow policy, even hard law
>>> based, processes of the 'good countries' done in fully multi-lateral
>>> ways seem to completely fall off civil society's radar.)Â  )
>> CoE is not the same as OECD's CDEP. For one thing, in spite of  your
>> repeated claims, CDEP does not have any sort of treaty coordination
>> role (a role, I note, that you would retain for your UN coordination
>> body). Very few CDEP outputs (a handful over the course of decades)
>> are even in a format that would be conducive to coordinating a
>> treaty, most are policy-like reports, raw data analysis or maybe at
>> most general policy statements. I cannot think of one CDEP output
>> that has in fact become a treaty. The closest might be the Privacy
>> Guidelines, which have a format that might be conducive to a
>> treaty-like instrument. These are an exception to the rule, though,
>> and moreover they have not been implemented by some OECD countries
>> (let alone formed the basis for an international treaty). In this
>> regard, it largely replicates what ITU-D already does which is create
>> non-binding policy reports and data analysis.
>> CoE by contrast is, as you say, a treaty coordinating body. However,
>> while contributing to the international dialogue on Internet issues
>> (like any other regional or national body), CoE is somewhat
>> contiguous with the EU system and, moreover, has much stronger
>> democratic mechanisms and safeguards than are available at the UN,
>> including a non-partisan parliamentary system, judicial system and
>> binding over-arching human rights instrument. Again, there are no
>> comparators at the UN level that could mitigate the harms that might
>> result from a purely state-led Internet treaty-coordination body, so
>> this, too, would not work as a model. (not to belittle the UN, just
>> to say that you would want a stronger, truly stakeholder makeup to
>> counteract this lack). That being said, I'm not very active at CoE,
>> so I would not want to speak to the efficacy of that model and
>> whether it does or does not need to improve in terms of its
>> multi-stakeholder formats.
>> Best,
>> Tamir
>>> It is time for those who occupy the space of the global civil
>>> society working in the IG area to engage with these uncomfortable
>>> questions. They would not be able to retain global legitimacy if
>>> they do not...
>>> parminder
>>> On Sunday 07 February 2016 03:27 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> parminder
>>>> 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.
>>>>>> IÂ  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 OECDÂ  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:
>>>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>     Â  Â  Â 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
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20160221/0a3a261f/attachment.html>

More information about the IRP mailing list