[discuss] My current understanding of scope and why

Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org
Wed Jan 8 06:52:00 UTC 2014

On 8 Jan 2014, at 1:57 pm, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I will just add that as "why" is important the other question that we have been asking repeated times for which I've only seen lengthy statements, some of them full of non-sense, and that still remains is "what problems require fixing?"
>> Maybe this indicates that you are asking the wrong question.  It's a bit like the citizens of a dictatorship calling for elections, and the dictator responding, "What problems require fixing?  You have food to eat, don't you?  You have clothes on your back?"
> More non-sense, I really don't know where you pretend to go with your dictatorship analogy. I'm not saying that there are no problems, and that if a fix is required we don't have to continue to explore ways to keep improving to make Internet better.
> Pervasive surveillance does not exist because of the technical capabilities, the lack of accountability and oversight is not a technical problem, and there is no technical solution to fix it when the main issue is several layers above the telecommunications infrastructure, Internet protocols and services.
> Can we in the technology development process pay more attention to privacy and security, no doubt, but once again that is not the problem.

You've lost me.  1net is not meant to be just a technical community dialogue, and the Brazil meeting is not meant to be a technical community meeting.  So what are you trying to say?  It's not our problem because it's not technical?

> I doubt very much that IETF, IGF, 1net or any other of the organizations part of this discussion can solve for example the lack of proper oversight that it is mostly the responsibility of government and people's representatives, which requires a complete different solution than the pervasive filtering or censorship of content, or limits or complete lack of freedom of expression in some countries.

Well, maybe you don't understand that that's what many of us are trying to fix.  It's not about trying to find solutions from the IETF alone, or from the IGF in the sorry state that it exists now, or from this dialogue.  It's about filling a gap in the Internet governance ecosystem as a whole.  That may be nonsense to you, but it makes very good sense to some of the rest of us.

> I don't think is quite clear yet what the purpose of the Brazil meeting is besides empowering a dialog and discussion about what issues require or will be better deal with in a multilateral or multistakeholder fashion, and perhaps come with a set of common principles. But I also doubt very much that anything at that level and with such a broad spectrum of participants will be accomplished in two days, without previous and substantial preparation for which now there is not enough time.

Well, if 1net had planned to have any say in it, you're right.  The opportunity is slipping it by, that's for sure.  But others of us are tired of the cynicism and lack of ambition about Internet governance reforms in some quarters, that has seen the IGF stuck in a rut for the best part of a decade, and we found President Dilmah's and Fadi's announcement a welcome breath of fresh air in this regard.  So within civil society, participants in the Best Bits network are taking on the challenge and working on our inputs with all speed.

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140108/9537d8d2/signature-0001.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list