[discuss] My current understanding of scope and why

[Seth Johnson]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course the meeting could decide to be non-duplicative of the IGF and
>> concentrate only on agreements about privacy and interference of
>> communications; and find a way to involve countries which more or less
>> have a legal framework for these activities and those who don't (in writing
>> and in actual practice.) I'm not holding my breath for this.
>
>
> Actually, that part isn't very hard.  You just have to start by making
> sure the governments (of all stripes) recognize the nature of the
> international context.  When you start there, you can do the sort of
> approaches that move forward realistically.


I had to get on a phone conference, so had to toss that note out quickly.

It's easy to make clear that the international context does not secure
fundamental liberties the way individual countries do.  And to get
recognition of that fact: it's the sort of thing that's undeniable, so
one way or the other, sooner or later, countries will have to
recognize it.  Whether they are free or not (though they may choose to
not be explicit on the point).

It's a different way of thinking than the sort of "statutory" approach
people seem to take to the international context.  And the various
issues being considered under "Internet governance."

With that foundation, you just start talking about interim measures,
what can be done given the limits of the international arena, to make
up for its defects.

(That applies both on particular issues and on organization of
international "Internet governance.")

And this is a far better perspective on the problem of countries that
may not really support the open platform.


Seth