[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
kichango at gmail.com
Sun Dec 22 10:11:24 UTC 2013
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm what problem ? Somebody is trying to connect the wrong dots here.
> Mrs. Rousseff's portion of her speech about this last September at the UN
> GA was centered in the "grave violation of human rights and of civil
> liberties, of invasion and capture of confidential information concerning
> corporate activities, and especially of disrespect of national sovereignty"
> Not too much later, the Brazilian government had to recognize that it was
> doing just that within his "sovereign" frontiers.
I hope any solutions that may be discussed in Sao Paulo, or any principles
that might come out of it, will not only apply to one specific government
and only to transborder data flows but opposable to all governments
including domestically, as well as to big corporations that control
personally identifiable data of hundreds of millions of people (to mention
only the most powerful.) I personally also hope they will be good enough to
encourage/support groups such as the IETF in being even more mindful of
those issues than they have been in their technical standards specification
> Then she touched the Internet Governance topic saying "Brazil will present
> proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for
> the governance and use if the Internet and to ensure the effective
> protection of data that travels through the web"
> The particular use of the word *multilateral" was what made many around
> here to freak out and rush to stop the wreck on "multistakeholderism", then
> the Montevideo I* statement
Probably justifiable so, although I'm not sure the use of the former word
was intentionally meant to quash the notion of the latter, given BR track
record in internet related decision-making processes. Or maybe at that time
she had in mind an instrument that requires governments' ratification,
which doesn't seem to be what anybody is shooting for right now.
> and Fadi's "secret" trip to Brazil, where after few hours later the
> President of Brazil twitted the announcement of a meeting in Brazil on
> April 2014.
> Also, I don't want the Brazilian government or any other government to
> tell me how I can *use* the Internet.
> Not many states bought the IG proposals part of the speech, and the recent
> resolution of the UN Human Rights Committee ended being about privacy and
> security in the digital age, topic that is being said won't be part of the
> agenda for the BR meeting.
I wasn't aware of this (or forgot about it, with all the information
floating around), and just suggested the contrary in my latest post down
this thread. See how things can shift quickly in this domain and show some
of us like ignorants?
> The resolution if adopted by the next GA (highly probable given the
> unanimous committee approval) will be not binding and does not even include
> the word Internet or mentions Internet Governance.
I would have thought this might precisely be a reason to address that topic
in the particular area of the internet, at the BR meeting. Anyway, if I
read well, Carlos was saying they are still at the stage of gathering ideas
but that the IG principles item is a non-negotiable. So we might still be
surprised either with the final agenda or with the contents and issues
addressed by those principles in the end.
> It is another exemplary piece of UN yada yada repertory to which many
> governments must be probably laughing about.
> IMHO we are being dragged into a proxy fight between governments
> challenging the multistakeholder model, where governments like Brazil,
> China, Russia, India, etc, want to have more "sovereign" control of the
> Internet (double check the positions and proposals on the last WCIT and
> read the transcripts of the sessions to learn what exactly each delegation
> said," and now being fueled by the outrage on the massive surveillance
> So again, what is the problem we are trying to solve ?
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> 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.
>>> 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)? Why did Chehade go see president Rousseff to
>> agree (and maybe even suggest, some say) to convene this meeting?
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss