[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

[John Curran]

On Feb 20, 2014, at 5:43 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> On 20-Feb-14 19:35, John Curran wrote:
>> Now, we can simply ignore the unique roles of governments (i.e. providing the
>> legal framework in which the Internet operates, in enforcement of laws, and
>> in protection of citizens from harm) when defining a framework for Internet
>> governance, but the result is unlikely to address the angst that governments
>> presently feel to trying to understand how to fulfill their responsibilities
>> when it comes to the Internet.
> 
> While I understand the source of their angst, sort of, for those states who take their responsibility for defending the people's Human Rights, I would contend that there may be no way to resolve their self defined angst other than subjecting the Internet completely to their tender mercies.
> 
> I firmly believe that for most governments, once you let them have an appropriate amount of control, they will over time work to gain complete control.  It is in their nature - for the most part they believe they are the only ones who understand the public good.

Avri - 

You use the word "control", and yet that is neither what I wrote nor intended to 
suggest...

I suggested primarily that they be treated as another stakeholder, with significant
attention paid to making them aware of ongoing Internet identifier coordination 
activities and facilitating their participation (just as I feel that similar efforts 
should be made with respect to those in less developed countries)

> Addressing their angst cannot be our motivation for allow them to get their heads in the tent.  Fair participation to address their appropriate role and responsibility for Human Rights should be the only consideration.


I also suggested that they be encouraged to develop common expressions of clear high-
level standards and norms which may be applicable inputs into the Internet identifier
coordination process (e.g. EU Data Privacy Directive, UN GA 68/167, etc.)  While these 
are likely to be with respect to Human Rights, there may be other generally accepted 
statements of norms which warrant considered by the entire stakeholder community.  
Example include standards with regard to languages to be provided for in major meetings, 
internationally recognized codes of letters and/or numbers used to refer to countries 
and subdivisions, etc.

Can you explain how my suggestions created concerns of "control"?

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.