<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi Bertrand,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The Cold War analogy wasn't my usage, rather I first saw it in the Economist… I must say though that, regrettably, a lot of the rhetoric and posturing from certain of our colleagues including in CS was very much of the Cold War variety including ominous characterizations in various forums of the fact that Toure had been "educated in Russia", frissant, frissant…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The terminology has come to be more widely used including somewhat tongue in cheek by myself because it so neatly fit the "us good guys vs. those forces of evil" reality of how various folks approached the WCIT discussions. If you go back into my interventions on this issue both on the "governance" list and on my blog I was arguing for nuance and a larger understanding of the overall issues that were at play (motivated in fact by your type of vison) than the extreme simplifications of the "Internet Freedom" warriors and their dark mutterings about UN takeovers of the Internet and deep Machiavellian plots by countries "out to steal the Internet". <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So rather than chiding me on this I'll give you a rather lengthy list of those whose gross (and dare I say self-serving) simplifications made such a characterization quite inevitable, not from me but from most everyone else in the world who wasn't riding on that particular Independence Day float.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And yes, I'm agreeing with you and hoping that the kind of polarization that was seen at the WCIT is a one time thing but if that is to be avoided there has to be a degree of recognition of the need of an Internet that benefits all with some degree of equity. That in turn means a recognition that the Internet is too important to be left simply to the determination of the currently dominant Internet corporations and their nation state supporters and allies; but rather means need to be found to ensure an Internet that develops and operates truly as a global commons and in the global public interest.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:53 PM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> Marianne Franklin; irp; bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Michael,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Promoting the Cold War analogy - or even "not being that uncomfortable with it" has one clear drawback: the Cold War was a perfect example of a negative-sum game (as in "game theory"). The amount of money spent on the corresponding arms race and the amount of ill-will generated by the "you are with us or without us" mentality was certainly something that we had better avoided. Inasmuch as using this analogy now would simplify the mental framework, it would be at the cost of a caricature and a binary mindset that I personally am <u>not</u> comfortable with. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The Internet is the most perfect example of a positive-sum game and collaborative effort where an amazingly large number of people (and, yes, companies too) around the world managed to pursue their own interests AND create global value at the same time. Let's not forget it. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Today, the security apparatuses on all sides have an objective convergence of interests and an incentive to reintroduce the Cold War analogy because it means funding, reaffirmation of power and justification for surveillance. Do citizens really want this negative-sum game to happen again? Do they want to see tremendous amounts of resources, human and financial, that could be used to promote development be squandered in a useless cyber arms race? Do we want our children to live in a world where cross-border communication around the world will be as distant and nostalgic a memory as freely boarding airplanes is now for us? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Or will civil society instead help shape, with other actors, new governance mechanisms to deal with the real security issues and enable coexistence in shared online spaces of soon 3 billion people with very different social, political, religious and cultural affiliations and beliefs? Can we not reaffirm that this is about managing commons; that this is about finding ways to gather and involve those who want to live together rather than submitting to those who prefer humanity separated in nice little geographic buckets that can be controlled? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I refuse negative-sum games when there are so many ways to produce positive-sum ones by building things together. Call me naive. But I believe - I know - it is possible, lucidly, without compromising values, without being duped and without overlooking the complexity of the task. But is it not what makes it exciting? Building the institutions humanity needs in this emerging digital age is a worthy endeavor and something that energizes many people on this list, and many other in different stakeholder groups. Let's not allow ourselves to be distracted. Even if it takes time. And it may. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Alain the philosopher once said: Pessimism is a matter of Mood; Optimism is a matter of Will (le Pessimisme est d'Humeur; l'Optimisme est de Volonté). I resolutely vote for the second leg of the alternative. Let us not accept artificial dichotomies that prevent positive progress. We need another narrative.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Just my two cents.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Bertrand<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:08 PM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Marianne,<br><br>I generally agree with your point but analogies in these types of instances<br>act as a sort of mental shorthand simplifying complex matters and making<br>things more comprehensible but of course, often distorting and introducing<br>false conditions in the process.<br><br>In this case I'm actually not that uncomfortable with the Cold War analogy<br>at least at a very superficial interpretive level if only because so many of<br>those from at least one leading country (and at least pre-WCIT, even from<br>that country's more visisible representatives) were framing their<br>interventions either implicitly or explicitly within a Cold War (Us-Them,<br>Enemies of Democracy-Democracy Alliance) framework...<br><span style='color:#888888'><br><span class=hoenzb>MG</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:irp-bounces@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">irp-bounces@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a><br>[mailto:<a href="mailto:irp-bounces@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">irp-bounces@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>Marianne Franklin<br>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:00 AM<br>To: <a href="mailto:irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging<br>Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest<br><br>Dear Best Bits folk<br><br>This is a very interesting discussion. If I could suggest however that the<br>reiteration of Cold War references actually serves the purposes of those<br>interests keen to keep this issue a polarized one. The use of military<br>idioms is an well-worn element in the 'armory' (see I am doing it too!) of<br>political communications.<br><br>How things are said matter, for critique as well. So, whilst I agree with<br>the substantive point Mike is making, and also concur with the point Carlos<br>has made about the EU Budget cuts (and this is something for the upcoming<br>EuroDIG I hope) here, I am not sure about formulating the work and various<br>affiliations of 'civil society' ( which is also a large fuzzy term that<br>includes lots of different sorts of committments) as non-aligned. The use of<br>'war' and such like appeared just prior to the WCIT in major broadsheets<br>around the world, the UK in particular.<br>This is the work of Spin and if civil society has anything to offer to my<br>mind it needs to work hard at reframing the debate in other equally<br>evocative ways.<br><br>Moreover, historically the Cold War has past. The East-West compass in that<br>respect has since shifted so I for one am uneasy about an over-reliance in<br>this sort of vocabulary; 'us versus them' is already framing things as a<br>zero-sum game and this is the fallout from the WCIT, by design perhaps.<br><br>best<br>MF<br><br>On 12/02/2013 00:47, michael gurstein wrote:<br>> McTim, my point was and remains that there are a range of issues<br>> involved in these matters and that the polarization generated at the<br>> WCIT may serve the interests of some but it doesn't necessarily<br>> reflect reality nor the interests/values of CS.<br>><br>> CS should be looking for higher ground (to my mind support for the<br>> Internet as a global public good) and finding allies in support of<br>> this wherever they can found. The focusing in the WCIT (and dare I<br>> say before that at the IGF) on the Internet Freedom issue by certain<br>> elements within CS and others ignored the very large range of issues<br>> on which agreement could and should be found and overall as I said CS<br>> should be "non-aligned" in the emerging "Internet Cold War" and<br>> developing it's own position(s) which include among others free<br>expression, human rights, and digital inclusion.<br>><br>> M<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: McTim [mailto:<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>]<br>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:29 PM<br>> To: michael gurstein<br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org">bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; IRP<br>> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging<br>> Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest<br>><br>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>><br>> wrote:<br>>> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the<br>>> issue, but at least from my reading there was considerable support<br>>> for the below among the "sovereigntist" camp<br>> "The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"<br>><br>> I don't see your point. Everyone supported this resolution according<br>> to the BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the<br>> very heart of the ICT sector" for example.<br>><br>><br>> --<br>> Cheers,<br>><br>> McTim<br>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> IRP mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/" target="_blank">http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/</a><br>> irp<br>><br><br>--<br>Dr Marianne Franklin<br>Reader<br>Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths,<br>University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14<br>6NW<br>Tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072">+44 20 7919 7072</a><br><<a href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk">m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk</a>><br>@GloComm<br><a href="https://twitter.com/GloComm" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/GloComm</a><br><a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/" target="_blank">http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/</a><br><a href="https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/" target="_blank">https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>IRP mailing list<br><a href="mailto:IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp" target="_blank">http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>IRP mailing list<br><a href="mailto:IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp" target="_blank">http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br>____________________<br>Bertrand de La Chapelle<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (<a href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net" target="_blank">www.internetjurisdiction.net</a>)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Member, ICANN Board of Directors <br>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br><br>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>