<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=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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";
color:black;}
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>I strongly agree with Katitza’s warnings about
centralization of power at the global level.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>On the issue of a cybercrime treaty, however, I offer a
qualification: it is actually the U.S. that is more aggressive, both about
cybercrime and cyberwar, and Russia is more interested in a treaty to protect
itself, just as militarily weaker nations tend to favor arms control treaties
whereas the ones with a military advantage do not. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>I also wish to say that I just voted for the Enhanced
Cooperation statement but was somewhat surprised to find the reference to OECD
in there as a model for governance. I guess the statement intended to praise
OECD for creating the CSISAC (civil society information society advisory
committee), which is indeed a small step forward. However, the language in our statement
implied both that OECD engages in global governance and that civil society
would be participating equally in that governance because of CSISAC. Both
implications are false: OECD really doesn’t do governance, it just
supplies research and analysis that states can use; and CSISAC just lets civil
society into some discussions, but the actual decision making is made elsewhere
on an intergovernmental basis. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Katitza Rodriguez
[mailto:katitza@eff.org] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Gwen Hinze; Valeria Betancourt<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] Part II - About a single centralized structure +
APEC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Since the call has already
being made, I will continue sharing my thoughts on the list. <br>
<br>
A few thoughts about a single centralized structure for Internet Governance and
Internet policy that was proposed in some emails. I believe is dangerous; I'd
prefer to see it split between different regulatory and policy bodies. While
there is a cost to follow different spaces, I believe is less than having a
single centralized structure. Having a single centralize structure is likely to
be a lobbying target; particularly so if the new body has norm-setting power -
everyone who has something to gain will have the incentive to spend time and
money lobbying there to influence policy or norm-setting in a way that suits
their interests. <br>
<br>
Civil society is likely to lose out in that world; we usually don't have
equivalent time or financial resources compared to other stakeholders, so we
can't "lobby" as effectively, and we usually don't have the ability
to engage with policymakers as closely as other stakeholders. The concern is
regulatory capture - regulators will often be influenced by those views that
they hear the most (and with a-symmetric resources, that is more likely to be
industry or govt and not civil society views). I do not believe this discussion
is about developing country framework vs developed country frameworks (at least
not from a public interest point of view). Instead it's about the scope of the
new authority and creating "a single point of failure".<br>
<br>
I do not like the broad scope either. On the cybersecurity / cybercrime front,
we can loose that battle completely. Just see which countries are requesting
what?<br>
<a
href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm">http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm</a>
<br>
<br>
About other Internet Policy Organizations:<br>
<br>
There are several organizations dealing with Internet Policy. One similar to
the "model of the OECD" is APEC. I consider APEC a dangerous space,
at least on privacy (and may be copyright). <br>
<br>
Observer status to APEC is restrictive, and countries like China/US might used
veto powers to avoid some civil society participants to join this meetings.
Latin American countries members of APEC are: Peru, Mexico and Chile.
Since the meetings are confidential, even if one country opposed to an observer
status application, the application is rejected. I consider APEC really
dangerous and I think is quite organization. I think, APEC is a close,
non-transparent, non inclusive organizations.<br>
<br>
There are tensions (in my opinion) between those OECD/APEC, although they
said they "cooperate" . For instance, on privacy, the OECD is placed
as a better place for privacy discussion because it has the European countries
(with strong privacy safeguards) and the United States in the other hand. While
in APEC is mostly driven by United States and its allies (including Mexico).
However, you also have the Council of Europe (and Convention 108) which does
similar work. And in some way you see different approaches to the same issue
from different point of views.<br>
<br>
There has been a lot of critics to ITU, Council of Europe for the close,
non-transparent, non inclusive, organizations. So I will not enter into detail
there.<br>
<br>
Note: I do understand the sentiment of Parminder of the lack of a research
policy institutes in developing countries that can tackle some internet policy
issues. A place that is open transparent, and inclusive. I do not believe that
a broad-in-scope is a good idea, nor a global one. We need regional
concerted agendas. For instance, in Latin America, may be ELAC is trying to
solve this vacuum. Valeria Betancourt, APC is the liaison for civil society in
ELAC in Latin America, and I would like to hear from here how ELAC works, the
scope of its mandate, the work they do, etc...<br>
<br>
But I fully agree with Lee (which I will quote: " So re-creating an OECD-like
public policy discussion forum is no small task and requires a small and very
smart core staff to do the work which member countries have to pay for. I don;t
see the political will or $ for that. I do see a number of UN-related entities
like UNCTAD, ITU-D, UN-GAID, which probably think that is what they are doing
but not at least in my view with the impact of OECD." <br>
<br>
In addition, I fear any possibility of create a new or enhanced space for
discussing global cybercrime/cybersecurity issues. <br>
<a
href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm">http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<1> Accountability Project <a
href="http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details%5CFileUpload265%5C2962%5CBruening_APEC_BNA_Oct-2010.pdf">http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details%5CFileUpload265%5C2962%5CBruening_APEC_BNA_Oct-2010.pdf</a><br>
<2><a href="http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd">http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd</a>[347]=x-347-566294<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>