<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><big>I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations
in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how
the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the
risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments,
individual government officials and third-parties that could gain
authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention"
infrastructures. (Norbert)
</big></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><big>Dear Norbert,
The best way to do what you seek is to get into globally negotiating some kind of framework of principles, which was the idea behind looking at a UN sponsored Framework Convention on the Internet. Once such a framework of principles is in place it can constrain any new agency which is otherwise required to addressed many legitimate global Internet-related public policy concerns from abusing its position and power. Such 'consitutionalism' is the established practice to check executive and legislative power. Civil society groups will be able to use such agreed principles to seek accountability etc.
As you say, it is time that global IG related civil society, which till now have completely shied away from this subject, other than perhaps considering it as some kind of a conspiracy of the devil, begins to take a considered and nuanced position on this subject which is recognised under the term 'enhanced cooperation'.
Such a stance of the civil society is even more objectionable when inter-governmental systems consisting of the most powerful governments already direct and control political evolution of the Internet to a considerable extent. Such direction/ control include developing Internet principles, applicable by default to the whole world. And many of the IG civil society who remain mute or strongly oppose the enhanced cooperation subject, do actively support such development of global Internet principles by these globally undemocratic platforms. The latest in this line is a reversal of the June 2011 stand of the CSISAC - the civil society group attached to OECD's Internet policy apparatus - to not support OECD's Internet policy principles, whereby it has now issued a press release welcoming these principles.
The spectacle of a soft and friendly approach to Internet policy making by the richest countries of the world coupled with a knee jerk rabid opposition to involving all countries in similar global Internet policy making is something which would be anathema to progressive global civil society in any other area. I have never understood how the involved people justify this to themselves. But in any case, coming back to the subject, the Internet Governance Caucus, if it has to lay claim to be a really global CS body, must look into this issue with greater earnestness and prepare a well-thought-out position for the May 2012 consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'.
With wishes for a great 2012 to all!
parminder </big>
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<br>
<br>
On Monday 02 January 2012 06:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20120102130734.7073515C136@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations
in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how
the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the
risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments,
individual government officials and third-parties that could gain
authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention"
infrastructures.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>