[discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

Fri Apr 18 04:50:25 UTC 2014

BTW, I'm not sure how Bertrand discusses it but my recollection is that this
distinction first emerged during a conversation between Bertrand and myself
3 or 4 years ago and at the time included a third (somewhat futuristic)
category which was governance "by" (or "through") the Internet i.e. where
the Internet was providing the essential modalities of the operative
governance mechanisms.

Best,

M

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Dr. Ben Fuller
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:16 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] we need to fix what may be broken

George,

Thanks to Bertrand de la Chapelle for coming up with the idea and you for
expanding on it. I hope someone is taking notes ...  Internet Governance
needs to focus on both governance of the Internet and governance on the
Internet with a lot of attention paid to where, when and how these two areas
interact. 

We know a lot about governance of the Internet, IETF, IAB ICANN and others
make certain that the packets get to where they are supposed to get as
efficiently as possible (over simplifying here). Governance on the Internet
can include matters like security, Angela Merkel's phone, censorship,
murder, crime. We on this list may not know much about the ins and outs of
these issues, but there are lots people out there who do. It is more a
matter of linking up with them and learning a bit about their concerns,
modes of operation, and the role, if any, the Internet can be used to
address their concerns. 

>From my perspective these two areas will be largely two different sets of
people with different sets of skills. There will also be two sets of
organisations that are active in each area. It might even be useful to
initially separate our discussions into one sphere or the other until each
is developed enough to start thinking about how they operate in relation to
each other. For me the fun and creative part will be to define and create
the conditions for those inevitable and necessary times when these two sets
must intersect. 

A useful way to go forward might be to look at governance of the Internet;
governance on the Internet, and; when, why and how the intersections occur.

Best,

Ben

On Apr 17, 2014, at 2:38 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Carlos,
> 
> I think that we may be talking across each other.  I am still sort of a
techie, although my skills are more of the 20th century than of the 21st.
But I ally myself with both the technical community and civil society; I've
worked in both fields, and I see the merits of both.
> 
> I consider freedom of expression very important.  I don't argue for
complete freedom of expression; neither do the Europeans, and the Americans
do not permit you to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.  However, nearly
complete freedom of expression, if aI can label it that, is a precious
freedom, and I support it.  
> 
> In your example, of a blogger murdered by order of a politician, how would
your stand on free expression be different if it were a newspaper reporter,
murdered by a politician, for exactly the same content.  I think that you
would be equally angry, and so would I.  the point is that the Internet is
not implicated in your example, just as the newspaper  is not implicate in
my rewrite of your example.
> 
> Bertrand de la Chapelle said it best at the NCUC meeting in Singapore.  He
said, 'let's differentiate between governance of the Internet and governance
on the Internet."  It's my belief that the vast majority of the technical
community is in signifiant agreement with most members of civil society with
respect to issues regarding governance on the Internet.  After all, we are
all inhabitants of the planet, and we want common freedoms and liberties.
> 
> Where I think we cross paths is that the technical community sees these
concerns crossing over into governance of the Internet, hoping that we
subject the governance to increased control of some sort, problems of
society on the Internet will be ameliorated. If so, we should be equally
concerned about governance of the newspaper industry, governance of the
content of school textbooks, and governance of the industry that publishes
books - clearly a dangerous medium of communication.  
> 
> We are concerned because we have something that works as a technical
instrument to distribute information from anyone to anyone.  Barring the
interference of governments that are sovereign in their space (conveniently
forgetting Ukraine for the moment), this distributed architecture and the
hundreds of thousands of technical people that support it operationally - in
the small and in the large - has scaled massively and works as well or
better than any other knowledge distribution channel that the world has ever
seen.  We do not want it compromised by having it managed by people who do
not understand it, and we do not want it blamed for societal issues that
mistakenly imply that the basic management of the Internet is culpable for
the problems of society.
> 
> The technical community is responsive to the needs of society.
Improvements in research and education were one of the primary motivators to
build and extend the network. The technical community was in large part
responsible for organizational innovations such as the meritocracy-based
standards approach pioneered in the IETF, which has been extraordinarily
successful.  Members of the technical community are generally supportive of
much of what representatives of civil society causes are espousing at Net
Mundial.  I believe that we are generally very much in favor of your calls
for free expression and human rights; we would like to see those calls
succeed.  And, to the extent that they are consistent with the security,
stability, and resiliency of the Internet, with your help we can improve the
services that the Internet provides.
> 
> Bet, let's not create, even in our minds, artificial barriers to
understanding, in both directions, even in our minds.
> 
> George
> (speaking solely on my own behalf, as always in this discussion spar)
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~
> 
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 
>> In the same vein, a blogger is murdered by order of a politician, it 
>> is not per se a theme of Internet governance -- but freedom of expression
is.
>> 
>> The point is: I am not saying that specific events are per se themes 
>> of Internet governance, and you may continue to build a near infinite 
>> list of events ending with the same phrase or question.
>> 
>> My point is that the events I quoted reveal that international 
>> coordination related to the development, operation and maintenance of 
>> the net need a lot of improvement and more efficacy. Like killing 
>> bloggers is an indication that we need to strongly advocate for the 
>> universalization of freedom of expression.
>> 
>> I find it amazing that some brillant techies cannot perceive that, or 
>> worse, that they see any diagnostics like mine as threats to the 
>> wonderful work they do (and it is indeed wonderful, but still the 
>> coordination of the "grand scheme of things" is faulty, needs 
>> significant improvement, it is a very relevant component of IG which 
>> needs to be discussed and advanced).
>> 
>> fraternal regards
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 04/17/2014 01:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> In a word, none of those issues are Internet governance.
>>> 
>>> How, for example, is the USA bugging Angela Merkel's cell phone 
>>> anything to do with Internet governance? How is the NSA snagging and 
>>> analysing billions of email headers a defect in Internet governance?
>>> Sounds like a problem with NSA governance to me. Was it an error in 
>>> telegraph cable governance that led to the Zimmermann telegram 
>>> incident in 1917?
>>> 
>>> I could continue but I won't. This business is complex enough 
>>> without dragging in irrelevant problems.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>>  Brian
>>> 
>>> On 17/04/2014 11:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>> Apologies for the top post, but this will be illegible if I try to
interleave from my phone. 
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to know why "governance" in particular is the answer to
even one of these problems.  
>>>> 
>>>> The OpenSSL case is a good example.  People have freeloaded on that
project for years, offering it precious little support while leaving
security auditing and cryptanalysis for "someone else".  If you think that
trash in your neighborhood park is a problem, the answer is not to form a
committee. The answer is to make like Pete Seeger and pick up some trash. 
>>>> 
>>>> Yahoo's DMARC decision is another good example.  That is a service
supported mostly by advertising. Don't like what they're doing?  Organize a
boycott.  That'll change things. Ask Mozilla. 
>>>> 
>>>> IPv6 is indeed a problem, and I will not defend the series of decisions
that got us here (though it's trickier than many seem to imagine). But
actually, in my experience, v6 just works now.  I use it all the time.  It's
not a "governance" problem, but an economics problem. 
>>>> 
>>>> And it seems to me that there we arrive at the issue: this is about
who's going to pay. That's very well, but I don't see why it's "Internet
governance".
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> A
>>>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

**********************************************
Dr. Ben Fuller
+264-61-224470  (O)    +264-88-63-68-05 (F)
ben at fuller.na             http://www.fuller.na
skype: drbenfuller
**********************************************

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss