[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation

Wed Jan 29 17:11:04 UTC 2014

Do not be so impatient to jump at new ideas with guns and pistols! Still I am happy to elaborate a bit on a small part of it, as many other things have to be taken in consideration here.

;-)

It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. You might also have trouble to make a difference between 'norms' and 'policies'. Beyond norms and standards, there are other words that do embed values and principles. Norms and standards are for many of them technically oriented if not technically or voluntary biased. We all know that the architecture of the ONE Internet we know today was set on purpose with 'holes' that were part of a grand design - no conspiracy thinking please. Just a technical setting that reflected a political will at the time. Any technician would have considered this 'hole' has an imperfection, but this same imperfection was there on purpose - Tech is not that neutral, it often comes with a 'policy'.

Even though that is not my best bet, I was wondering if the technical community of the Internet - on a broad scope - would find it that difficult to connect 2 Internets to each other. Or 3 Internet to each other. In other words, I was wondering about a Multinet, if the designing (or change of grand design) of a ONE Internet has reached its limits for giving way to a fair 'Law of the Internet'. I am sure than all the smart e-minds around would not find it that difficult, neither very expansive. Again, this is not my best bet to have 2, 3, 4… Internet. Just wondering. Eli Noam and others find it inevitable. I think you do remember the video conversation you guys had all together few months ago. That being said, I do not buy straight up the idea that a MULTINET would create so much frictions and increase costs for doing business, a concern Chehadé is now raising to push the US companies into some form of compromise about IG. Cheahdé, as a good player would do, has asked the Boston Consulting Group to bring some arguments against a MULTINET. This has to be debate in the open, and in details.

According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys bother about it?" Indeed he belongs to the Asymmetrics that do not have any specific consideration for 'privacy'. His business (Google's) is to exploit our privacy for the need of advertisers. Google is being copied by many, so far never been equalized or overpassed. Google did so well, that they made a fortune out of violating our privacy, destroying by the same token many independent media that suddenly were not able to compete in the face of advertisers. Good for Google though. Google brought many other tools and norms to the world, but it was not without huge returns for itself. You know that around the world there are different perceptions of privacy and the way law can consider that 'our' data, including metadata belong to each one of us.

Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in GENEVA. Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, or any other sort of violation. You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. The expression of Internet Human Rights comes from where? From my observation it came out of the US State Department. Alec Ross whom I interviewed before he quitted his job as Senior Digital Advisor to Secretary Clinton had a smile hearing my question about these 'rights' . He  confessed on the record me that these Internet or Digital Human rights did not exist but that the expression was getting 'support' as you said earlier. Again, this support is very questionable, as we don't know who are the supporters, if they represent more than themselves, and, at the end of the day, if they have any legitimacy. Privacy is not specific to so-called Internet Human Rights. Privacy is an hold asset to human rights.

Norms and standards are 'applicable', but do you understand "applicable" in the technical sense meaning 'doable'? Or 'applicable' in the sense of law, meaning possibly enforced with the intervention of justice and police force. These are complete different ideas. 

Law, national and international are part of the IG debate, and so far the Asymmetrics have managed to escape them. Law would be the ultimate villain. Law and governments. This has to come to an end, when you consider spamming, surveillance, cyberwar...

I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of values, common values, and not just norms and standards. 

This is one of the few points where the gap or divide between the current holders of an asymmetric IG are not ready to go. History will prove them that they are wrong by confusing norms/standards and values/law. All of them have to come together. And that requires much more TRUST, LEGITIMACY. 

Think about it John, this is only a DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGE. Asymmetrics have to accept a global demand to introduce DEMOCRACY back in the game, not just a phony 'equal footing' norm or standard, that clearly means nothing to any honest Democrat.

JC

Le 29 janv. 2014 à 16:56, John Curran a écrit :

> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
>> Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it.
> 
> JC -
> 
> Regarding the scope of your hypothetical "supreme international body" (which is apparently your 
> proposed solution to the present situation) - are you advocating that there be treaty body to establish 
> "Law of the Internet" as opposed to recognition of the applicability of existing international norms 
> to actions that now take place over the Internet?
> 
> i.e.  "Internet" Human Rights distinct from Human Rights, "Internet" Personal Privacy distinct 
>         from Personal Data Privacy rights, "Internet" Diplomatic law rather than Vienna Diplomatic
>         relations, etc.?
> 
> The Internet is a communications medium, and while it may have unique aspects, I am trying to 
> discern whether that is the limit of the scope of your hypothetical supreme international body 
> or whether it is something greater.
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140129/6e9c0059/attachment.html>