<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">In complete agreement with Gene!<br>
<br>
On 11/12/2013 04:01 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+4KnA_jUexNZ+q7nodKmtGyjnK2Q2+dvH0OS_xcm0Dbf-Hzrw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I certainly don't want to even begin to try to
solve for all the problems we face. And I fully understand the
outrage at recent revelations, plus the desire to focus on
transparency as a means to build trust. At the same time, I
myself am happy to "opt in" to a group like Best Bits that seeks
to take concrete steps to address important issues, and of
necessity requires me to trust that others who opt in do so in
good faith. If I find that faith to be misplaced based on the
actions of others, I will be disappointed and seek another
platform to participate on. In the meantime, I am comfortable
working with the loose coalition of groups that has been coming
together around the Best Bits platform. And I certainly can
understand that others may make a different decision about
participating in this endeavor. I'm not sure I see a reason to
continue the same conversation we've had for the last few
weeks. Maybe those who want to participate in Best Bits as it
currently is constituted can do so, and others can just drop out
and quite complaining about it.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM,
michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"
target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As we all
know the Internet Governance space is becoming a very hot
topic<br>
and subject to increasing scrutiny, internal manoeuvering
and external<br>
intervention.<br>
<br>
This isn't at all surprising given the vast, even world
altering resources<br>
of wealth and power (both of the passive informational and
aggressive<br>
cyberwar varieties) that are potentially being affected.<br>
<br>
Any adjustment, however minor in the overall (governance or
other) ecology<br>
of the Internet now has likely ramifications impacting
everyone,<br>
everywhere, and in a vast multitude of ways both visible and
invisible.<br>
<br>
Notably, the overwhelming thrust from a variety of
directions is that the<br>
form that this Internet Governance takes is to be
"multi-stakeholder" where<br>
the "stakeholders" are roughly defined as governments, the
technical<br>
community, the private sector and civil society.<br>
<br>
The recent Snowden revelations have shaken the on-going
rather comfortable<br>
and even Pollyanna-ish sense that the overall deployment of
the Internet was<br>
somehow being done in a manner and with effects that were
supportive of the<br>
broad well-being of humanity.<br>
<br>
The revelations have for many shattered this belief along
with the trust<br>
that underlay so many of the relationships and transactions
on which the<br>
Internet is built and continues to operate. This framework
of trust has been<br>
in in the words of many at the recent IETF meeting,
"attacked", and for a<br>
significant proportion of those thinking of such matters it
has been fatally<br>
undermined.<br>
<br>
The Technical Community appears to be still reeling from the
discovery that<br>
the "good faith" of many of those that they considered
colleagues and<br>
partners was in fact "bad faith"; and the associated
interventions were in<br>
various instances undertaken not in the interests of
humanity as a whole but<br>
rather in support of narrow and self-serving national (and
it would appear<br>
corporate) interests.<br>
<br>
The further revelations of the systematic incursions into
the internal<br>
technical operations of certain US based Internet
mega-corporations has<br>
evidently resulted in both anger and an associated
recognition on their part<br>
that the agencies and interests involved were not operating
in a manner in<br>
keeping with normally recognized business practices and
interests.<br>
<br>
It is thus astonishing that Civil Society, in the IG context
the weakest and<br>
least resourced of the "stakeholders", should be asked to
accept on "good<br>
faith" that its activities and on-going deliberation will
not have been<br>
subverted in precisely the same ways and in support of the
same interests as<br>
have been the on-going activities of the Technical and
Business Sector<br>
stakeholders.<br>
<br>
In fact it would be astonishing in the process of subverting
the Internet to<br>
certain national and corporate interests, if CS as a key
component of<br>
Internet Governance were to have been overlooked.<br>
<br>
The sad but I think inevitable conclusion is that I can see
no basis on<br>
which to have continued "trust" in the various CS
institutions or activities<br>
since I see no basis on which I can determine the good/bad
faith of the<br>
various actors/interveners in those spaces.<br>
<br>
While I can see a basis for finding collaborators and
like-minded folks to<br>
pursue specific activities/interventions based on a clear
articulation of<br>
shared norms/visions, beyond that I see little basis for
going forward in<br>
the current CS formulations and significant dangers more
generally if the<br>
current CS spaces are taken as sole or even significant
representations of<br>
the policy positions of global CS in relation to Internet
Governance.<br>
<br>
(It follows as well given the above that the overall
commitments and<br>
celebration of Multi-stakeholderism as the preferred model
for Internet<br>
Governance (and increasingly for governance overall in the
Internet age)<br>
needs to be seriously re-thought as per my recent blogpost.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-enemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/"
target="_blank">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e<br>
nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
M<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"
target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Director-International Practice
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org">www.softwarefreedom.org</a>
Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.sflc.in">www.sflc.in</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>