[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

[Brian E Carpenter]

Mawaki,

On 22/12/2013 12:49, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 22/12/2013 08:31, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/12/2013 05:36, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators
>>>>>
>>>>> - Official launching of a review process of the global IG
>>>>> frameworks/models;
>>>>>
>>>>> - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles
>>>>> for global IG;
>>>>>
>>>>> - Tentative draft of a global IG model.
>>>> Thanks for the update. However, I find these objectives very
>>>> disturbing. They seem to assume
>>>> (a) That there is a problem caused by defective IG.
>>>> (b) That the solution is a "global IG model".
>>>>
>>>> I am not aware that either of these assumptions have been justified.
>>>> That should be the starting point IMHO.
>>> I disagree with the view that that “expected outcomes” statement
>>> contains assumptions that need justification before this can proceed.
>> Norbert, then what is the problem caused by defective IG? (That is not
>> the same question as "What is the problem?".) Again, I am not trying
>> to be clever or sarcastic: I simply don't know the answer.
>>
>> If, for example, the answer is "Pervasive surveillance by NSA and
>> their friends" I would strongly dispute that defective Internet
>> governance is the cause.
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>>
>> My turn to be a little confused by... your question, actually. Because I
> frankly thought there was an emerging agreement among various actors about
> a problem. Maybe that would help if you please answer the following
> questions for me: What was the motivation and the purpose of the Montevideo
> statement (if nothing else)? 

There are three quite clear and self-explanatory bullets in the Montevideo
statement, which I fully agree with, and one bullet that refers to "Internet
Governance challenges" without explaining what these challenges are. That is
my puzzlement - I don't know, in practical terms, what that phrase refers to.

> Why did Chehade go see president Rousseff to
> agree (and maybe even suggest, some say) to convene this meeting?

That is not a question I can answer.

> Or is the problem here with using the words "global IG" to label this
> topic? Are we heading for a semantic debate here (I hope not, because I'm
> already worn out by the process/non-process/anti-process debate)? Do you
> think there is any such thing as "global IG" to begin with (and that this
> meeting is not or should not be about that thing)? Maybe not, and maybe
> this is all a misnomer. But language is a human thing and it's imperfect.
> There's no real logical relationship word-to-meaning; it is in the way
> humans use the words that sometimes make the meaning.

Indeed. But the WSIS definition of IG doesn't help, because it is so
non-specific. That's where I get stuck.

> So maybe we can just say: let's the BR meeting discuss about the "thing"
> that moved the Montevideo statement to occur, and Chehade to suggest or
> agree with president Rousseff to convene the BR meeting (which she might
> have agreed to, maybe, just maybe for the same reason that moved her to
> give that speech of hers at the UNGA last September, which in turn may have
> prompted Chehade's visit/outreach to Rousseff). Let these folks discuss
> about the "thing" that they want to see addressed and assist them find ways
> to possible/acceptable solutions. Maybe then we/they will discover that
> those solutions have nothing to do with "global IG" but belong elsewhere.
> As long as they provide keys to the solutions to the "thing" and are
> accepted as such, who cares what the "thing" was once called, pr is still
> called, anyway? So many things are wrongly called in the media everyday,
> and we still live with that.

Well, if the "thing" is the revelation of massive telecommunications monitoring,
I think it's extremely dangerous to the Internet to call it "Internet
governance". After all, it started in a serious way in 1914 if not earlier,
due to the fact that most intercontinental telegraph lines went through
Great Britain, and the British Government intercepted everything it wanted
to. If the "thing" is certain governments abusing the media, including the
Internet, for thought control, that's been going on for even longer. Allowing
governments, and the media themselves, to view these as things that are
specific to the Internet puts the Internet in danger of government interference
that I trust none of us wants.

If the "thing" is to reform ICANN, it seems to me that the ICANN Board
could do that tomorrow. There is a window of opportunity, while the USG
is flapping around dealing with Snowdenia.

So I believe that it really does matter which "Internet Governance challenges"
we are supposed to be dealing with.

    Brian