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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On 21-Feb-14 13:27, John Curran wrote:
> Avri -
>
> You use the word "
control", and yet that is neither what I wrote nor intended to
> suggest...

I accept that you did not mean to suggest control.  but I read:

> (i.e. providing the legal framework in which the Internet operates,
> in enforcement of laws, and in protection of citizens from harm)

When an entity can make the rules and enforce them, they are in control.
So even if you did use the word, I infer it from what you wrote.

If we allow governments to create the framework in which the Internet
operates on an international level, we will have given them control.

>
> 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)

I am fine, and have stated so many times, with governmental actors as
peers to non-governmental actors in creating the framework for Internet
governance.  I just did not read your statement as including the rest of
us in defining the framework for law.

I agree with Jeanette in her repply to an extent, rule of law is 
important.

But it is also has another vicious side, because governments can 
arbitrarily make laws that they can then enforce, often without any 
regard for any other stakeholder involvement or for what is consistent 
with Human Rights.

One just has to look at the rule of law in Uganda and other places that
have defined homosexuality to be a crime (where even knowing and not 
reporting knowing and not reporting a homosexual is a crime), or Russia 
where even talking about homosexuality on the Internet is a crime.
Once they have defined such laws, even if they run counter to
all international norms, should we accept the rule of those laws as
the framework governing the Internet?
And this is just one example of where governments define immoral law, 
and law that runs counter to the treaties they have signed.  Such 
behavior does not lend itself to a reasonable acceptance of them 
defining the framework for the Internet.

So certainly in an abstract sense we can accept therule of law as a good 
thing, but only in cases where we can trust the lawmakers; and those 
cases are few and far between and getting more rare all the time.

avri


>
>>> 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.