[discuss] JustNet Coalition contribution on Roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem for Netmundial.br
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Mar 14 08:37:34 UTC 2014
While we are on this subject, it may be useful for the 1Net to recognise
that many actors do not think the ' ICANN/IANA issue' should be the main
concern of NetMundial.... Reading the minutes of the recent High Level
Committee meeting for NetMundial, I see France say this clearly, and
ICANN rep agree to it.
Now, even if we are to take that ICANN/IANA will only be half of the
story at NetMundial, should we do some discussion on the other half as
well? Beginning perhaps with recognizing what this other half is.
I take it to the broader public policy issues related to the Internet
which are either inherently global, like general jurisdictional disputes
and global mass surveillance, or have very significant global
implications, for instance, net neutrality and economic of personal data.
What kind of global Internet governance mechanisms are required to
address these pressing global issues?
I certainly take the need for urgent addressing of these issues to be of
much greater important than the ICANN/IANA issue. Also, remember that
President Rousseff's UN Speech which precipitated matter and set us on
the road to Sao Paolo had nothing to do with the ICANN/IANA issue and
everything to do with these other issues.
On Friday 14 March 2014 01:05 PM, parminder wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2014 05:33 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> Hi Parminder,
>> At 02:29 11-03-2014, parminder at itforchange.net wrote:
>>> The preamble is the same, however the operative part is different. It
>>> provided a roadmap for institutional reform in global governance. The
>>> earlier document was about principles for Internet governance.
>>> Happy to provide any further clarification.
>> If one of the aims of the proposal is to help developing countries,
>> could you please explain how it would help such a country?
> Dear Moonesamy,
> I am happy to explain...
> To understand how the proposal
> from Just Net Coalition helps developing countries one needs to first
> understand 'what and who' shapes the evolution of the Internet today,
> as the Internet itself shapes our larger social structures, whereby
> the impact of this 'what and who' goes rather far and deep...
> To keep it brief, it is my understanding that the following key
> political and economic forces shape the Internet today, in the
> decreasing order of impact;
> Extravagant profit motives of a few global corporation, almost all
> US based;
> The laws and policies of the US, which are enforced, overtly and
> subtly, on these global corporation; and,
> Policy framework of some clubs of rich countries, like the OECD
> and CoE (for instance, OCED's principles for Internet policy making).
> There is huge nexus between 1 and 2, which together constitute the
> most powerful, in fact, quite overwhelming, force shaping the Internet
> today. Meanwhile, the US is largely able to bull-dodge its way with
> regard to 3 above as well.
> Apart from the above, Internet technical standards and critical
> resource management bodies, also have a strong impact. These bodies
> have swung between doing extremely good work to frequent capture by
> the above corporate interests. In my view, their public policy
> oversight while important is relatively the lesser problem right now
> as compared to other issues listed above.
> Now, before we move forward to frame a response to the basic question
> you asked, 'how does the Just Net Coalition's (JNC) proposal
> help developing countries', we need to form some level of agreement on
> two propositions.
> The above is largely the right picture of the forces that are
> shaping the Internet today.
> Things are not going in the right directions with the evolution of
> the Internet vis a vis canons of equity and social justice (for
> instance, 10 top websites had respectively 25, 50 and 75 percent
> of the total page views in the US in 2000, 2005 and 2010, and
> things have gone considerably worse since).
> If you strongly disagree with either of the above two propositions,
> JNC's proposal will make no sense to you. But if you do agree, there
> is a lot of ground for us to look at remedial political solutions. And
> I am ready to take up such a discussion, admitting that our proposed
> solution may only be one among many possible, and even perhaps not the
> best one. Our group, in its collective wisdom, thought that what is
> needed in the current context is an counter-magnetic field to the
> highly dominant forces today, that would be created by developing an
> anchor point inside the UN system which begins to undertake normative
> discussions on issues of Internet policies, and where needed comes up
> with higher norms and principles (as OECD has come up with), policy
> frameworks, and as and when needed, binding conventions and
> treaties.As happens with every sector in the UN, it will be much more
> about developing higher norms and principles, much fewer policy
> frameworks and rather infrequent conventions or treaties....
> Such a counter magnetic field alone can even begin balancing the
> lopsidedness of the current political and economic model around the
> Internet, and it goes to reason that such a balancing will serve the
> interests of developing countries, in fact of all marginalized groups
> everywhere in the world.I hope you agree.
>> S. Moonesamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss