<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>The interesting thing about this debate is that it is typical of the
tensions within this group between idealism and pragmatism.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Avri puts the idealist end of the spectrum well - </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">“All of the Internet, like the land world
before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy,
with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began
to misappropriate those commons and called it property. Each day more of that
commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called
intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what
government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the
commons.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And at least part of me agrees wholeheartedly
with an analysis that sees governments as bodies who don’t represent the public
interest here, and the less we have to do with them the better. That’s an
idealist stance.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">But on the other hand is the pragmatic end of
the spectrum. Here, many of us acknowledge that governments, fortunately or
unfortunately, do exist, and somehow or other we have to bring them to the table
and find a way to make their involvement here less harmful and more in line with
the public interest. At this end of the spectrum we acknowledge a role for
governments and insist on a role for others parties as well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">In the early days of Green politics this split
(most obvious in Germany where the “fundies” (fundamentalists) and “realos”
(realists) fought huge political battles on all sorts of issues, each side
passionately claiming that a real “green” party had to (from one end of the
spectrum) stand up for its basic principles and never compromise, or (from the
other end) come up with implementable policies which may not achieve everything
we want but would at least get something useful done. Neither side was
wrong!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And I think those same tensions exist in much
of what we discuss here. Perhaps some “status-quoists” are people who can see
how imperfect governments are, and therefore suggest their involvement won’t be
helpful. Perhaps those arguing that we have to involve all governments (citing
democratic principles often) , are just realising that they do exist, they are
legitimate structures honoured by most people, and they cant be
ignored..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And with various shades in between. I must
admit to moving often from one end of this spectrum to the other. In the middle,
perhaps, is the “pragmatic idealist” – and somewhere in the middle of our
various positions in this debate there just might be a position or two where we
can find some common ground.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">That is, if we can overcome some linguistic
and cultural differences.......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=parminder@itforchange.net
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:58 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the
United States Regarding Internet Governance</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public
Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included the
following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some relevant
points about the language.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may</DIV>
<DIV>intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law
enforcement and</DIV>
<DIV>cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy formulated
by governments</DIV>
<DIV>with input from civil society, business and the technical
community.</DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The 'Public Knowledge' statement is
also very clear on respective roles of different groups or stakeholders vis a
vis the public policy role of governments. This is the single most contentious
issue in global IG today..... A good rejoinder to all those 'all stakeholders
are equal in public policy making processes' kind of dangerous anti-democracy
statements, that this elist/group also seem to be rife with. 'Public Knowledge'
takes a clear and strong position against such a formulation. IT for Change has
since long warned that playing with democratic principles at the global level
can have extremely dangerous consequences for national and local level democracy
practices and principles. <BR><BR>what are basic democratic principles for local
and national levels remain unchanged for global levels. We all know that facts
as well possibilities at each level are different, and these have to be worked
with, however, without breaching larger democratic principles (which are
repeated sought to be breached in the name of MSism).... UN based multilateral
systems are far from perfect (but so are are our national systems in different
ways). But then the processes at multilateral levels are also different - for
instance need for consensus for most processes, and the fact that almost always
anything agreed to internationally becomes effective only when ratified, and
that there are almost zero coercive implementation mechanisms in the hands of
multilateral systems (expect for some of the kind which US routinely usurps, but
that is a different matter). Still, the democratic practices at global levels
should be further improved - with all kinds of new participative, transparency,
accountability etc methods..... Which however is very different from using the
pretext of 'democracy deficit' to institutionalise practices and institutions
that are 'in principle' anit-democratic, like seeking that a corporation should
have a similar voting power as a government in international policy making
settings.<BR><BR>parminder <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>For example, the</DIV>
<DIV>United States has by law protected the privacy of children online through
Child Online</DIV>
<DIV>Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we opposed
the ITU</DIV>
<DIV>resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States protects
its citizens from</DIV>
<DIV>spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the
Federal</DIV>
<DIV>Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and numerous
other</DIV>
<DIV>federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in protecting
consumers and</DIV>
<DIV>promoting competition and their existing statutes.</DIV>
<DIV>We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as
simply a resolution</DIV>
<DIV>directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction of
the ITU, these</DIV>
<DIV>important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. Our
opposition to</DIV>
<DIV>ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer protection
and free</DIV>
<DIV>expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting
consumers or</DIV>
<DIV>promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best decided
here at home,</DIV>
<DIV>by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government
constrained by</DIV>
<DIV>the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity or
law</DIV>
<DIV>enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for
Congress or other</DIV>
<DIV>federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the Constitutional
limitations of due</DIV>
<DIV>process and free expression.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and
similar reasons.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jeremy@ciroap.org
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Jeremy Malcolm</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.igcaucus.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the
United States Regarding Internet Governance</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV>It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in
passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in the
Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at the
moment. There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support for it
from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual property
"gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy regarding
Internet governance", which flows from the findings. The latter simply
states:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free
from government control and to preserve and advance the successful
multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global
Internet free from government control, only free from the control of other
governments besides itself. And note that US policy is only to "preserve
and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, which continues the
fiction that the multistakeholder institutions that we have now are adequate
both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth of Internet governance topics
that they cover.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by defining
"control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this bill is
just going to entrench the standoff between the US and other countries, which
is not going to be helpful in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet
governance arrangements this year...</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; FONT: medium helvetica; WORD-WRAP: break-word; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate" class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT-FAMILY: helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT-FAMILY: helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-VARIANT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT-FAMILY: helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">-- </SPAN><BR
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">
<P style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><B>Dr Jeremy
Malcolm<BR>Senior Policy Officer<BR>Consumers International | the global
campaigning voice for consumers</B><BR>Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle
East<BR>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia<BR>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</P>
<P style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer
Protection Map: <A href="https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main</A> | #wcrd2013</P>
<P style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); FONT-SIZE: 9pt">@Consumers_Int |
<A href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.consumersinternational.org</A> | <A
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</A></P>
<P
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); COLOR: rgb(153,153,153); FONT-SIZE: 8pt">Read
our <A href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">email confidentiality notice</A>. Don't
print this email unless
necessary.</P></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</A><BR>To
be removed from the list, visit:<BR> <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</A><BR><BR>For
all other list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</A><BR>To
edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:<BR> <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</A><BR><BR>Translate
this email: <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR>To be removed from the list,
visit:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<BR><BR>For all other list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<BR>To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
http://www.igcaucus.org/<BR><BR>Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>