[discuss] Subjects IG other than ICANN, IETF, IPv4-6
nashton at ccianet.org
Tue Jan 7 23:33:26 UTC 2014
We are saying two different things. It is true that Internet policy and governance issues related to surveillance, content, privacy and the like are beyond technical administration, however, that doesn't mean that they don't have an IG dimension to them. This has been clear since before WSIS, and the WSIS documents reflect that understanding.
It is also worth noting that IG is only a small part of WSIS: the overall objective of that exercise was development, not just to talk about the governance.
Brian, if all that interests you are technical issues, that's fine, there's plenty of space to talk about that. Those subjects are important, but they are getting 90% of the airtime in a political climate where they represent only about 10% of the concerns that are now driving policy related to the Internet.
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 07/01/2014 21:34, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> Inline responses.
>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 04:04, 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).
>> Which is true … but doesn’t get it out of IG either.
>>> The link with the issues commonly described as Internet governance
>>> is fairly weak; the link with Internet security and privacy
>>> is strong, of course.
>> On the contrary, and the most obvious evidence that your conclusion
>is incorrect is the Brazil meeting, which we would not be having were
>it not for Snowden. Secondly, if further evidence is needed, is the
>WSIS review process, which is now a much more complex and risky one
>thanks to the same.
>No, the meeting demonstrates the confusion of thought that I've been
>banging on about. The fact that the NSA and its collaborators have
>been conducting surveillance has nothing to do with the administration
>of Internet technical resources. If some clarity about that fact
>could result from the upcoming meetings, that would be a step forward.
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss