<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Dear George Sadowsky,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Reply inline:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:42 PM, George Sadowsky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">All,<div><br></div><div>
I would like to focus on a broader issue raised by the interesting discussion below. It has been touched on before, but I think it’s useful to go somewhat further.</div><div><br></div><div>I see the issue as what is the appropriate domain of 'Internet governance' concerns. And that leads immediately to what we think the domain of concern of “Internet governance’ is, i.e. how we define it.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>I’d like to propose a thought experiment.</b> Suppose that by 30 September 2015, somehow “we” have created an appropriate accountability mechanism to replace NTIA’s current responsibilities. Further, suppose that (1) NTIA accepted it and proceeded to make the transfer to the new mechanism, and (2) there was very broad general agreement across multiple stakeholder groups globally that this was a transition that was worth supporting.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>What, then, would we discuss next?</b></div><div><br></div><div><b>On the one hand</b>, some of us argue that Internet governance is really the appropriate construction of Internet administration and coordination mechanisms, with their appropriate oversight, and that issues of content and behavior need to be discussed in more general contexts. Nick Ashton-Hart argues this persuasively. As an example, I would find it unproductive to discuss surveillance in the Internet unless it were within a more general context of surveillance policy. In that context, I see the Internet as another tool, such as using hidden cameras and microphones, tapping voice phone lines and intercepting postal mail. </div>
<div><br></div><div><b>On the other hand</b>, it’s clear that the introduction of the Internet has introduced both qualitative and quantitative changes in many areas of life and of human behavior, and that mechanisms dealing with them have not caught up to dealing with the Internet’s disruptive influence. Such problems often have (at least) two aspects, one technical and the other societal. I would not characterize these as Internet governance problems, but rather problems with respect to general governance caused or exacerbated by the Introduction of the Internet.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So back to the thought experiment. If we really do solve the accountability and administrative issues related to ICANN and IANA in a manner that is widely accepted (admittedly a stretch, but it works for a thought experiment), then that is off the agenda. What’s next on the “Internet governance” agenda, and why? Do the venues for those discussions change, or not? Does the label by which we refer o those discussions change, or not? What is your “to do” list for Internet governance after an IANA final solution: </div>
<div><br></div><div>1. ….</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">1. With the Accountability and Administrative issues related to ICANN and IANA solved in a manner that is widely accepted, the first item on the "to do" is to consider ways of USING the Internet to resolve greater issues confronting the world at large. The Accountable and Transparent Internet Governance mechanism could become a forum for the stakeholders of the world to examine opportunities to bridge gaps in education, for instance, by connecting schools across nations, worldwide, making it possible for a student from school in India with relatively modest teaching resources to connect to benefit from the teaching resources of a school anywhere else, without contaminating this opportunity with complex Trade laws or indirectly unaffordable business models. Another example would be that of collaborating on tele-medicine across borders to make healthcare affordable where it is not. Global needs could me fulfilled by global resources, where possible and desirable on non-commercial models of Mutli-stakeholder collaboration, and by business models in areas where business causes progress. A The Accepted IG mechanism could explore these positive macro-development aspects that Internet holds within as a potential promise.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>2. ….</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">2. Even though the Accountability and Administrative issues are resolved, the task that remains is that of sustaining the goodness of such a mechanism in a manner that the mechanism would further evolve, which requires attention to the people chosen to frame the policy and those employed in administrative roles. This requires a highly advanced process unrestrained by methods of traditional placement of people in International Public positions. For e.g. we need to think of a process by which candidates are not chosen by geographic rotation in a geographic sequence term after term. Or by alternating sequence of gender. Or by Popular vote. Or by diplomatic maneuvers. The men and women are to be chosen for positions by a thoughtful process that may be far more more intricate a process than adopted so far anywhere. No specific suggestions here, what I am suggesting is a "fuzzy" process, 'fuzzy' as in 'fuzzy logic'. This requires utmost attention.</div>
<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
3. ….</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">3. Where is your headquarters situated? Could it remain there in a free-to-fly-in-zone? Could it be moved somewhere else global? Is there a plot of land anywhere that is Global? Or, could we find a symbolic alternative? Where will you have other offices? Will Internet have an office in every continent or every country, or have offices located exactly 5000 kilometers apart from one another, irrespective of the political geography? How do you transition contracts with due fairness to those already contracted? How early should the mechanism prepare for transition in anticipation?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>4. ….</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">4. If surveillance, for e.g, is to be discussed in a separate framework for surveillance, could the Internet cause to initiate such a mechanism ? Could it also participate and to some extent offer to support the discussions, for the good of the Internet and also for the larger good? What are those "moral responsibilities" (may not be the right choice of words) that the Internet Governance Institutions have brushed aside so far as being 'beyond the mandate or scope'? An Administrator or a Policy maker might see something as outside the mandate, but the average Internet user might might see it as neglected areas of responsibility. List the areas that affect the Internet or affected by the Internet, yet are dismissed as outside the mandate, and at least THINK about who would address those areas or how the issues would be solved.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">5. On matters related to revenue, should the Institution remain shy of allowing a flow of revenues, or adopt policies to allow a flow of revenues on a model that is easy on the average user from any part of the globe? If revenues accumulate, how would the institution make use of it? Entirely on its own Institutional Assets? On Internet infrastructure? Or beyond ? How ? What would be the sub-structure or separate structure for possible good work?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Sivasubramanian M</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>….</div><div><br></div><div>Opinions welcome.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, if you believe that there is nothing left after an IANA final solution, then it might be useful to suggest some of the specify issues that you exclude, and suggest suggest specific venues and processes that that represent the correct way forward to address those problems.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is really the issue of what Internet governance is, and is not. The WGIG definition had enough creative generality to navigate a process through the political environment of WSIS, but now we are addressing more specific issues. We lack descriptive terms that have enough specificity for us to be able to even discuss them without stumbling over definitional differences. That kind of stumbling is not a good use of resources. If we do not share what a word or a phrase means, I don’t see how we can discuss it sensibly. Responses to the proposed thought experiment might yield some clarity on this point.</div>
<div><br></div><div>My sense is that the terms ‘Internet coordination’ and ‘Internet administration’ are unused terms that could be used to clarify discussions, but for some reason they have not been adopted by many others. Using more precise and shared terms to discuss the issues within the different strata of Vint’s diagram, sent in an earlier e-mail, would IMO be very helpful in making progress in these discussions. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Let’s concentrate on recognizing, defining and identifying problems — it’s more important and, at least for me, more satisfying than semantic arguments.</div><div><br></div><div>George</div><div> </div>
<div>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <<a href="mailto:nashton@ccianet.org" target="_blank">nashton@ccianet.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Dear Seun, inline responses<br>
<br><div><div>On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:11, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Hello Nick,<br><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nashton@ccianet.org" target="_blank">nashton@ccianet.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I disagree.<div><br></div><div>The international community does need a way to discuss surveillance - but Internet governance is not that venue, for the simple reason that the surveillance issue is about surveillance and not the Internet. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The issue of mass surveillance is really asking the question of how do countries treat non-nationals in their national security activities. The fact that the Internet is used as a tool for surveillance is really irrelevant to the question, just as the Internet is used for distribution of illegal material like those related to child exploitation but that is primarily an enforcement of laws issue, not an Internet issue.</div>
<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
</div><div>IG does not need to be about everything where there is an Internet dimension - or no solution to any problem can be found.</div>
<div><br></div><div>However: the political demands for action over surveillance are impacting the Internet as we all know - so we do have a vested interest in ensuring that the core issue of mass surveillance is addressed, just not primarily by us, and not in IG.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Just to get the flow right, when you say "us" whom do you refer? and when you say mass surveillance is not an IG issue then what issue is it? My expectation is that the IG platform will provide an avenue to discuss the issue and then propose solutions which countries will then turn to legal content applicable to them. If the issues are not discussed then it will be difficult to know what they are and address them. Bringing then to IG fora will help give it a voice that could hopefully get to the listening hears of government and relevant authorities. <br>
</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>"Us" meaning the IG community. As to what issue it is, it is, as I described, an issue of surveillance, not the Internet. So, the human rights dimensions are currently being actively addressed in the Human Rights Council and related processes. The exchange of data for criminal and national security purposes are governed by MLATs (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties) - <a href="http://access.org/" target="_blank">Access.org</a> has an excellent website devoted to MLAT reform at <a href="http://www.mlat.info/" target="_blank">www.mlat.info</a>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Bringing this issue to IG fora will harmfully conflate issues which have nothing to do with IG with IG issues, and contaminate (further) Internet governance with a great deal of politicisation. I would hope that we all don't want to see the security, stability, and universality of the Internet further polluted with politics of national security and safety.</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">As per the NetMundial, i agree with Avri that from recent happenings, ICANN-IANA related issues may carry the majority of the agenda which ofcourse was not the only reason why the event was conjured in the first place. However since the ICANN-IANA discussion will start from ICANN49 i think some foundational progress will have been made to further lighten up the NetMundial agenda to accommodate the other half of the goal which is largely related to mass surveillance.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think if NetMundial is consumed with ICANN issues that will be both a mistake and a huge missed opportunities. Finding a way to agree on principles, and what is, and is not, appropriate for IG policy to address would be a significant added value; there is also no other global forum designed to produce outcomes along these lines. The discussion of internationalizing ICANN has a home for discussions: ICANN.</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">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.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>"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.</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br></div><div>Regards<br></div><div> <br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers!<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><div><br>
<br><div><div>On 17 Mar 2014, at 06:16, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br>On Sunday 16 March 2014 09:51 PM, Victor Ndonnang wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">+1 Adiel.<br>Surveillance and intelligence agencies was there before the Internet. Even<br>if the Internet has a role in the mass surveillance...USG/NTIA intent to<br>
transfer IANA and root zone management related to the global independent<br>Multistakeholder entity is not a response to the mass surveillance issue.<br></blockquote><br>Agree, developments on the ICANN oversight issue do not constitute any real response to mass surveillance problem. And since NetMundial came out of a series of events directly connected to the mass surveillance problem, and which is the main reason the 'global community' invested into it, it is only fair to the people across the world that we have<br>
<br>1. discussions on this issues, and others related to larger international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet , and<br>2. come up with proposals regarding these issues.<br><br>I have seen almost nil work on this list in this regard. ICANN oversight issue should not be allowed to overshadow these much more important and pressing global public policy issues. I fear this is what is happening. A good reason of course is structural about what 1Net is.<br>
<br>parminder<br><br><blockquote type="cite">May be that Global Multistakeholder entity will be the IETF or I... to help<br>strengthen security, privacy and trust on the Internet.<br>The Internet Governance is mainly a technical thing, let's leave the<br>
technical community takes care of it with the full participation and inputs<br>of others stakeholders.<br>Regards,<br>Victor.<br><br><br><br><br>-----Message d'origine-----<br>De : <a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss-bounces@1net.org</a> [<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org" target="_blank">mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>] De la part<br>
de Adiel Akplogan<br>Envoyé : Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:48 AM<br>À : Seun Ojedeji<br>Cc : 1 Net List; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC<br>Objet : Re: [discuss] [governance] NTIA statement<br><br>I disagree as well. In this discussion it is very important to dissociate<br>
the USG/NTIA by role in the performance of IANA function by ICANN and the<br>issue related to mass surveillance. The two are not technically linked and<br>should be addressed separately.<br><br>- a.<br><br>On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br><blockquote type="cite">Well I would not disagree that mass surveillance indeed continues.<br><br>Any NSA statement that says otherwise?<br><br>Cheers!<br>sent from Google nexus 4<br>kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
<br>On 15 Mar 2014 19:08, "Joly MacFie" <<a href="mailto:joly@punkcast.com" target="_blank">joly@punkcast.com</a>> wrote:<br>Disagree,<br><br>Different department.<br><br>j<br><br><br>On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <<a href="mailto:pouzin@well.com" target="_blank">pouzin@well.com</a>><br>
</blockquote>wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br><br>The IANA ballyhoo comes from the same factory as the "internet freedom"<br></blockquote>smoke screen launched before WCIT. It's a spin diversion for the show.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Mass surveillance continues. What's new ?<br><br>Louis<br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br><br><br><br>--<br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>Joly MacFie <a href="tel:218%20565%209365" value="+912185659365" target="_blank">218 565 9365</a> <a>Skype:punkcast</a> WWWhatsup NYC -<br>
<a href="http://wwwhatsup.com/" target="_blank">http://wwwhatsup.com</a> <a href="http://pinstand.com/" target="_blank">http://pinstand.com</a> - <a href="http://punkcast.com/" target="_blank">http://punkcast.com</a> VP<br>
(Admin) - ISOC-NY - <a href="http://isoc-ny.org/" target="_blank">http://isoc-ny.org</a><br>--------------------------------------------------------------<br>-<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453/" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br>
</blockquote></font><br>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote>
</div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
India +91 99524 03099
</div></div>