[discuss] Interesting article

Tue Jan 14 10:53:18 UTC 2014

Dear Ali,

I get your point but I think perhaps it is tangential to mine. I'm not saying all that you say isn't true, I'm saying that the USG and the other 5-eyes countries are bad ambassadors for touting the open Internet, free speech online, etc because they've discredited themselves by saying one thing and doing another.

I am certainly not saying that other "sinners" are better emissaries - but there are countries who are much more credible since their national legal systems actually do what the US said it was doing, but was not. Switzerland, Iceland, a few others come to mind.

These are the kind of countries we need speaking up on open Internet issues - they have credibility.

Note here these are my views, based upon my being based in Geneva for years and therefore hearing very candid views from governments all over the world.

On 14 Jan 2014, at 11:29, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:

> Nick
> 
> I have a different contrarian view. It is exactly because of Snowdenia that the US and its kind are uniquely placed to do something about this. At least they are owning upto it or some part of their ecosystem has the ability (dare say the Cajunas?) to 'out' their government. Please do not assume for one moment no other country doesn't have its own version of Snowdenia...because they do...they just have not been caught with their hands in the cookie jar..yet..
> 
> Can we say the same thing about China, Russia? Lets be real. I'm not a US apologist but I'm realistic enough to know that there is no easy answer to this. Some months back I argued in my blog about the need for a sort of non-governmental Non-Aligned Movement to drive this. I may be naive but its worth looking into.
> 
>  www.alyhussein.com/internet-governance/
> 
> Suffice it to say that there is no utopian solution to this and it is forums like these that will shape our thinking going forward..
> 
> Ali Hussein
> 
> +254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113
> 
> "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots".  ~ Albert Einstein
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
> 
>> I would actually dissent from the conclusion of this article, that the US and close allies should be exerting leadership. They can't - not after Snowden, unless they aren't members of the 5-Eyes system.
>> 
>> Other countries, not a part of that system, need to be leading on these issues. The 5-eyes simply don't have credibility anymore to talk about the open Internet, and it actually irritates many countries when they try to use the same, pre-Snowden messages. It is counterproductive; they should take a back-seat and let / encourage others to do the leading.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>  
>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>> 
>> Geneva Representative
>> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA)
>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
>> email: nashton at ccianet.org
>> Skype: nashtonhart
>> http://www.ccianet.org
>> 
>> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and 
>> date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 January 2014 21:52, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks. I've extracted the following passages:
>> 
>> What Lies Ahead – So, what’s next in this domain?  As I just noted, the ITU’s next plenipotentiary meeting will be in South Korea from late October to early November 2014.  Two events are on the horizon for that meeting.
>>  
>> First, some are talking about amending the Constitution of the ITU.  Doing so requires a two-thirds majority.  The current proposals range from an ITU “oversight” council to replacement of ICANN with ITU governing structures.  The later prospect, in particular, would be chilling and could result, in the end, on the amendment of technical Internet Protocols and naming rules to foster sovereign control of the network.  No drafts have yet been produced – and the Constitution requires that they be published by April.  At that point we may see exactly what steps might be proposed.
>>  
>> Bottom line:  The decision of some countries to not accede to the Dubai ITRs has already raised the possibility of degrading the interoperability of the network globally.  Revisions to the IP creation process or the DNS naming system might accelerate that degradation (since Western nations are also unlikely to follow authoritarian IPs) and accelerate the move toward the possibility of a “splinternet.”
>>  
>> Still, amending the Constitution would be hard.  If we take the 89-55 vote in Dubai as a baseline then those who would change the ITU’s Constitution to mandate internet governance were short of the necessary majority in 2012 – but perhaps not any longer.  For one thing, there were many members who did not cast a ballot in Dubai – total ITU membership is 193 countries, so 55 is already fewer than the 1/3 blocking minority necessary.  More to the point, however, those 55 votes have likely eroded since Dubai – thanks to Edward Snowden.
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> The second development is even more of a sleeper.  At the Busan meeting, the ITU will elect a new Secretary-General.  The incumbent, Dr. Hamdan Toure of Mali, is term-limited.  As of today, there is only one announced candidate for the position.  He brings to his candidacy a great deal of experience, including, most recently as Deputy to Dr. Toure in the ITU.  While such internal promotion is laudable, I will be forgiven if I express a small amount of concern – the candidate is Dr. Houlin Zhao of China.  Thus, one plausible scenario would be for 2015 to see a newly empowered ITU dealing with international internet public policy issues, and perhaps even asserting authority to create internet technical standards, under the direction of Dr. Zhao.
>>  
>> One final note:  The US is not really paying attention.  Again, as of today we have yet to name an ambassadorial rank leader for the US delegation.  And, frankly, I don’t think that the Executive Branch has as great a concern about these events as I do.  There is a crying need, however, for greater US engagement – notwithstanding the Snowden fall out.  More importantly, the US private sector needs to recognize that the lack of a strong US governmental presence is doing them harm – they need to quickly and decisively collectivize their efforts if they are going to avert potentially adverse results.
>> 
>> and the conclusion
>> 
>> There is a real intellectual appeal to the idea of an international governance system to manage an international entity like cyberspace.  But, upon closer examination the idea is fraught with peril.  What is needed now is a reinvigoration of the existing multi-stakeholder structure combined with bilateral and multilateral agreements on narrow issues of general applicability.  Those who support the MSM and ICANN/IETF structure must acknowledge the dislocation that diminished revenue is having on some nations that are dependent on telecommunications taxes for a portion of their budget and, where possible, propose mechanisms to ameliorate the adverse effects.
>>  
>> More importantly, we should strive to instill confidence in ICAAN and the IETF as stewards of cyberspace.  It may, for example, be necessary to further decouple those institutions from Western influence.    But even after the Snowden disclosures we must also recognize that the non-State structure currently in place is less subject to political manipulation than the alternatives.  These international institutions are multi-stakeholder groups where individuals, technologists, political organizations, innovators and commercial entities all have a voice.  The product of their consensus is more representative and more moderated than any system respondent to only sovereign interests can hope to be.
>>  
>> The way forward for the United States and other Western nations is to make common cause with allies and friends around the globe to establish cooperative mechanisms that yield strong standards of conduct while assuring the continuity of critical cyber freedoms against the challenge of authoritarian sovereigns.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ben Fuller <abutiben at gmail.com> wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> Some food for thought.
>> 
>> http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/01/the-continuing-struggle-for-control-of-cyberspace-and-the-deterioration-of-western-influence/#.UtQRdX8ayK1
>> 
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140114/f7022122/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140114/f7022122/signature-0001.asc>