[discuss] Subjects IG other than ICANN, IETF, IPv4-6
apisanty at gmail.com
Tue Jan 7 03:20:46 UTC 2014
I'll chime in here - I've been calling to dissect Internet governance from
#SnoopGovernance for a while.
The whole Brazil affair is an artificial construct. A far more credible
move would have been for the government there to publish an Executive order
or decree to put their own law-enforcement and security forces under strict
rules for surveillance of their own citizens and foreign
governments/foreign nationals. A second, bit slower, credible move would
have been to send a Personal Data Protection law to the Legislative, with
explicit provisions with respect to action by governmental surveillance and
monitoring parties as above. So... even Germany, in the statement that made
it to the UN General Assembly, took away all the Internet governance
provisions and left only the privacy of communications and rules-abiding
surveillance/monitoring/espionage part, in terms open enough that all
governments will continue to do what they see fit to do but look good on
This is not to deny there is some incidence on the Internet and its
governance; but little in this field will be solved until engineers have
the specs from law and actual practice of surveillance. Nick Ashton-Hart is
totally credible re there being an outrage in Geneva; but we all can have a
different opinion on how artificial or misguided it is. Also, whatever the
level of artificiality you attribute to it, it is happening, and Fadi
Chehade and other signatories of the Montevideo statement have made a bold
but likely wise move in rising up to the challenge.
The IETF's perpass action (reviewing Internet protocols considering
pervasive passive monitoring of networks as an attack, as most in this list
know) is a good engineering move, designing modularly and adaptably around
a moving target.
So, next step: "Orphan Issues." Let's see a list so that people like you,
Andrew Sullivan, David Conrad, Suzanne Woolf, Jorge Amodio and others can
start to analyze and design for them. And spend a while away from ICANN
discussions, at least to see if there are any fresh ideas out there. Nick
has got a really strong point in asking about this.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > There seems to be a great deal of discussion about the more traditional
> IG subjects, but not much about the new realities imposed upon the entire
> field by the Snowden revelations. This seems to me to be a bit of missing
> the forest for the trees.
> > IG is now a head-of-state level issue because of surveillance,
> If you review the Snowden revelations, you can clearly see that
> this is not by any means exclusively an Internet issue. The topic
> is Surveillance governance, covering all forms of telecommunications
> (and for that matter, surveillance of paper correspondence to the
> extent that it still exists).
> The link with the issues commonly described as Internet governance
> is fairly weak; the link with Internet security and privacy technology
> is strong, of course.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss