[discuss] My current understanding of scope and why
jmamodio at gmail.com
Wed Jan 8 08:41:08 UTC 2014
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:52 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 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 didn't say 1net is just a technical community, nor the meeting in a Brazil.
>> 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.
Once again I'm not referring to just the IETF or IGF or a single institution. I believe it is you that don't understand that besides pointing government officials and representatives where they exist and have the power to produce changes into the right direction, the Internet governance ecosystem can't solve for example the pervasive surveillance problem. Can we come out with a set of principles ? Perhaps but unless we as a whole develop enough clout and lobbying power the only thing we are creating is noise.
>> 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.
You have to be kidding or are grossly misinformed, Brazil plans and attitude towards definition of a set of principles and being a major role player predates President Rousseff, Fadi was dispatched in a hurry by the multistakeholderism status-quo who freaked out when she used the word "multilateral", so there is no fresh breath anywhere but a proxy fight to defend the interests of specific groups and governments.
About the IGF, I share your frustration given that the same interests are the ones that besides a discourse and documents producing effort impede the production of any substantial results.
More information about the discuss