[discuss] [governance] Snowden-Interview: Transcript

[Adiel Akplogan]

On 2014-01-28, at 17:42 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Jan 28, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Guru गुरु <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to believe) that the status quo is to be preserved...
> 
> If, by "status quo", you are referring to Mr. Snowden's remarks re threats to his life and economic espionage, the former is detestable (no person should face risk of death due to their well-intended remarks) but I have serious doubts whether any change in the status quo of Internet governance arrangements will impact that in the least.   Same with respect to economic espionage, the unique US role in Internet governance does not appear to enable or facilitate the pervasive monitoring that has been revealed, so changing that role will not impact it at all.   

Fully agree with you John and I'm not sure we have been articulating the above enough. But we should. There is certainly a need to introspectively look into improving some aspects of the current coordination/governance system to enhance transparency and trust … in fact to better demonstrate the above. 

> (The only good news on this front is that the IETF has taken up the issue of technical measures to prevent monitoring via its "perpass" 
> efforts - <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-perpass-attack-05.txt>)

… the other good news is that it also probably help waking up many policy maker on the need to have a better understanding of the impact of their local policy framework on the derive of the use of any technology (a human phenomenon) … and particularly in this case of a technology that has and will increasingly continue to have a global impact. All this to be balanced with the need to keep the permission-less innovation aspect of the Internet.

> If, by "status quo", you mean the unique role served by the USG in oversight of technical coordination of the Internet, then I'll note that I have seen very few folks on the 1net list support such a position, and there is no meaningful way that the Montevideo Statement can be read to support such a position.  

> I believe there is a large number of ways to change the current structures to address the situation of the unique USG role in Internet coordination, and it's hoped that actual discussion of alternatives may occur on this list in the near  future (once we all can move beyond posturing and get back to work on a problem statement…)

+1.

- a.

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140129/d546669a/signature.asc>