<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Dear all,<br><br></div>I meant to send this email much earlier, but work got in the way. <br><br></div>I refer to the thread on the 1net list which touched upon the contribution(s) of the European Commission to the NETmundial conference (which are available at <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176</a> and at <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177</a>). <br>
<br>The thread is available in the archives of the mailing list at <a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/002527.html">http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/002527.html</a>. <br></div>
<br>The contribution(s) to NETmundial are based on the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance which was adopted by the European Commission on 12.2.2014 (see <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1395846952750&uri=CELEX:52014DC0072">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1395846952750&uri=CELEX:52014DC0072</a> in all EU official languages).<br>
<br>More specifically, a passage of one of the contributions to NETmundial (which comes directly from the Communication) has been quoted, namely:<br><br>"<i>Technical details of Internet protocols and other information
technology specifications can have significant public policy
implications. Even where the technical discussion process is open, key
decisions are frequently made by technical experts in the
absence of broad stakeholder representation. An effective
multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet will
be based on efficient mutual interactions between technical and public
policy considerations so that technical specifications
more systematically take into account public policy concerns. This is
particularly important when legal rights of individuals, especially
their human rights, are clearly impacted. The implications of this
evolution in norm setting in relation to the Internet
require an open public debate with all concerned.
</i><p><i>The Commission proposes to convene, together with interested parties,
a series of workshops with international experts in law, ethics, social
sciences, economics, international relations and technology, in order
to develop concrete and actionable recommendations
to ensure coherence between existing normative frameworks and new forms
of Internet-enabled norm-setting.</i></p><i>
Furthermore, all stakeholders should strengthen (and where
appropriate create) structured mechanisms to allow regular, early and
truly inclusive upstream participation, review and comment in technical
decisions. These structured mechanisms should also strive
towards consistency of technical decisions with human rights. The
Commission stands ready to discuss with relevant stakeholders the best
options to achieve this objective.</i>"<br><br></div><div>An interpretation has been offered on this list, claiming that the above passage is calling for "<i>forms of oversight to make IETF standards conformant to public policy concerns</i>".<br>
<br></div><div>While of course everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, I'd like to point out that:<br><ul><li>the word "oversight" is not used once by the Commission in the quote passage. When adopting a Communication, which implies political and sometimes legal responsibility, we are quite careful in our choice of words.</li>
<li>besides the terminology, and focusing on the substance of the contribution itself, it is difficult to understand where to find a "call for oversight " in (1) convening "workshops with international experts" that would produce "actionable recommendations to ensure coherence between existing normative frameworks and new forms of Internet-enabled norm-setting"; or (2) suggesting that stakeholders involved in Internet technical decisions should make sure that the full involvement of all stakeholders (not specifically governments / public authorities) is facilitated to the extent possible.</li>
<li>if the European Commission had wanted to focus specifically on the IETF, it would have mentioned the IETF by name. Obviously the IETF is a very important player in the Internet technical community and I have myself had some quite interesting discussions - which are certainly not over - on the IAB "InternetGovTech" mailing list (archives available at <a href="http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/current/maillist.html">http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/current/maillist.html</a>). But the activities mentioned by the Commission are broader in scope.</li>
</ul><p>Incidentally, I fully agree that we shouldn't fall prey of simplifications when interpreting the "code is law" concept / meme. This is one of the reasons why the Commission is proposing a series of workshops with experts from various fields to explore the interactions between "code" and "law".<br>
</p></div><div><div><div><div><div>Best,<br><br>Andrea Glorioso<br></div></div></div></div></div></div>