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

[michael gurstein]

John,

I would refer you to the (updated?) Brazil meeting website...
http://netmundial.br/ where apparently the "hosting" of the meeting has
devolved to "a partnership between CGI.br and /1net".

What this, combined with your words concerning the (relative lack of
substantive) significance of 1net, suggests to me is that in your perception
the Brazil meeting seems now to have become nothing more than a "topical
seminar" of no more significance than a passing debate on the BB or
Governance e-list or a rather compressed and unanchored version of the IGF.

Is this correct?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:57 AM
To: JCN Global
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC; Best Bits; 1Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil
meeting preparation

On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:11 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
wrote:

> 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.
> 
> ;-)


Excellent (and I by no means intended to "ambush" you; I was simply trying
to understand your proposal and reasoning)

> It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. 

I have no difficulty with the word legitimacy, but I do believe that any
group of folks can collectively work on problems with "legitimacy" - that is
inherent to rights of free movement and association.  Concerns about
"legitimacy" of any voluntary and open discussion is misplaced, as the
outcomes themselves are
ideas to be freely picked up (or not) and used (or not) via voluntarily
mechanisms.   
To my knowledge, any proposed solutions developed by 1net are no more
binding on anyone than solutions from Best Bits, IGF, or or any topical
seminar.
 
Now, if you are talking about parties who intend to make mandatary choices
on behalf of others, then the use of words like legitimacy, representation
and equity become particularly important (but such binding outcomes do not
align with my understanding of 1net's role; they might be part of your
"supreme international body, no?)

> 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.

EU Directive 95/46/EC is directive which specifies a now widely accepted
norm.

> 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. 

Correct; hence my request to you regarding scope and mode of your postulated
"supreme international body"

> 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. 

It would be nice to see something perhaps more detailed, and in particular
how the values being set would intersect (or not) existing institutions.  I
do not believe you addressed that question in your response, but will await
your ongoing refinement of the idea and can discuss when it is ready.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.