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

[Mawaki Chango]

Brian,

Thank you for your precise answers to which, as a matter of courtesy, I
respond with my limited/partial reading of the situation as follows.

1. As someone mentioned in another thread, despite claims by AT&T engineers
in the early days of the Internet, most phone calls are now traveling over
IP we're contemplating a situation where the slogan "everything over IP"
has made some serious progress toward realization. So there might be a case
to be made that the capabilities of the Internet today (including its
possible loopholes, vis-a-vis security, privacy or otherwise) has a
significant effect on most of our communications today --at least among
those who have access to phone and internet-- possibly amplifying even a
problem that originated from or was already around with phone networks.

2. My sense, precisely (albeit very modestly, in every sense), is that a
non-negligible portion of Internet users think or perceive that the
internet in its basic design does not help much to protect privacy and
other relevant human rights and that we could do a better job at that and
that is, at least in part, an aspect of the "thing" that has set the BR
meeting in motion (from this second perspective, the NSA massive
surveillance revelations have mainly opened a window of political
opportunity while they may also be seen as the most immediate trigger.)
Now, is that "global IG"? Maybe not, but the fact is those issues are
related to some extent to the design of the internet and they have been
being discussed in IG spaces, too.

It may well be possible for some of the engineers out there to come up with
a great deal of arguments and technical detail showing that the above view
(or the views I'm trying to so describe) is/are wrong, and that there are
other ways to resolve those problems than calling for a global meeting (I'm
sure there are). At this point it doesn't really matter. The fact is, for
one, Internet has been around us for more than two decades now and many
people don't see those issues are being resolved, and for another, the BR
meeting will take place and those views as well as competing/countering
ones will be displayed and maybe/hopefully better articulated than they
have ever been. And perhaps the BR meeting in its attempt to produce
principles will serve as a catalyst to make progress where progress is
actually needed (say, as per engineers' view) or maybe those principles
will be enough acceptable to most that they will become norms that most
actors will try to live by and they will gain some political clout so as to
pressure governments to uphold/respect them (or at least CS actors may be
able to use those principles to do so.)

Again, I do not intend the above to explain everything about why we are
where we are today and where we're heading. It's a partial view which I
think has a place in answering so of our questions. At any rate, that is
how I see the BR meeting, at least in part and for now (things may change),
and what I may be looking forward to out of it. It may be wishful
thinking... we'll see. But I doubt the day after the BR meeting there will
be a major power shift among internet stakeholders.

Mawaki


On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131222/9f967e48/attachment-0001.html>