[discuss] [governance] NTIA statement
nashton at ccianet.org
Mon Mar 17 10:30:05 UTC 2014
On 17 Mar 2014, at 11:26, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:57, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I think this will happen, I, for one, don't see the value of multiplying the same discussion in different fora with the same core people in all of them. There are people here for whom the ICANN/IANA evolution is not a core issue (myself being one of them). The two objectives of NetMundial are neither specific to ICANN or IANA, but far broader; we need that broader discussion.
> Well i will not expect that participation at ICANN meeting will be identical to that of NetMundial. The main idea however is reaching broader scope and widening the scope of contribution. Hence the reason why i think NetMundial will most likely be taken advantage of, especially considering there are timelines to presenting a proposal as the existing contract ends soon.
The issue of transitioning from USG to fully international for ICANN doesn't have to only be discussed at ICANN - and I for one will wager that the process that is ultimately adopted will specifically include outreach to those that don't attend ICANN meetings.
>> I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with recent development on ICANN-IANA, as it is good news. However we should also not let that overwhelm the other present concerns. Lets remember that the ICANN-IANA processes is to prevent the future "what-IFs" while mass surveillance on the other hand is currently happening and we should not neglect that.
>> "we" cannot solve national security issues. All we can do is insist that the various aspects of national security use of data and the rules by which non-nationals are treated are dealt with - in the fora where they are already under discussion.
>> This is the point; for me, it goes beyond national security, as i think that is just one side of it. There is personal security, organisation security and even the global security at stake. If there are indeed fora where issues like these are discussed and the voices from such forums are indeed recognised then why not, we go for it through such forums, until then we stick to the forum we know. (by the way the access.org seem un-reachable).
> There really isn't an 'until then' I don't think. The HRC has been dealing with surveillance as a main element of work, as regards the HR aspects, extremely capably, for quite a while now. The next major milestone is this June's HRC meeting. For those of you interested in HR and the online world, I strongly suggest you engage there if you aren't already; that's the venue where you can be successful as that's where the expertise and political engagement is. For the social aspects of surveillance, a process is just beginning at UNESCO; again, if that's your cup of tea, you go there. For security, there's the London Process and the annual conferences where that process goes forward. Etc. etc. For data protection issues that are not state-related, there are national and international fora where these are discussed too.
> https://mlat.info/app.php/ works great here.
> Thanks for all the information (access.org was the place i was heading initially).
>> The thing is we take surveillance as starting point and when we have raised so much awareness, we divert to other topics and then conclude that surveillance place is no longer here. Again i am in no way saying other topics are not also important but one is not necessarily more than the other.
> I am not sure that I follow what you mean in this paragraph.
> Well i was indirectly saying that the emergence of mass surveillance was largely the reason for Br event, now it does not seem to be necessary to feature on the agenda. OR would you not characterise the Br event as an IG fora?
Ah - yes, it is certain the surveillance issue created the motivation for the Brazil meeting, but that doesn't mean that the meeting has to be about surveillance - and in fact it is intended to specifically address two issues, neither of them being surveillance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the discuss