<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='color:windowtext'>I just finished a quick read of the GCIG Report and ho, hum… Much much more of what we already have seen in multiple other reports re: the wonders of the Internet, the risks of child porn, the dangers lurking from cybersecurity issues etc.etc.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='color:windowtext'>Certainly some sections are consistent with, even in some cases offering unattributed renditions of various JNC (and associated authors’) writings. (I’m truly delighted to see my “<a href="https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/"><span style='color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'>In Defense of Multistakeholder Processes</span></a>” blogpost evidently (of course it could be coincidence) providing the basis for the Report’s “new model” of MSism … i.e. “</span></span><span style='color:windowtext'>a new model that embraces greater involvement of those whose lives are affected by decisions that govern their ability to use the network and to exercise their fundamental rights online<span style='color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'>” </span></span><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><span style='color:windowtext'>although (surprise, surprise) they missed the part where I talked about how MSism could enhance democratic processes</span></span><span style='color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><span style='color:windowtext'>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><span style='color:windowtext'>But the most interesting element of the report is what isn’t discussed. Nowhere is there a discussion of the basic social justice critique which is the way in which the Internet is contributing to the astonishing increases in economic inequality both within countries and between countries, nowhere is there any real discussion of cyber-surveillance as per what we have learned from Snowden, nor any significant attempt to address issues of asymmetries of power (and powerlessness) in an increasingly concentrated Internet ecology of dominant platforms, and most importantly nowhere is there any real discussion about what should be done about creating institutions/mechanisms for global Internet Governance (but wasn’t that the point of exercise?) beyond sweet and fuzzy notions of a “social compact”… . <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><span style='color:windowtext'>That is, the Report skates over all of the areas where there is the possibility of real contention and ends up giving us much more of the same old same old although to be fair (non)operationalizing the JNC/community informatics notion of the “Internet as a public good” through a Social Compact is a novel approach.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><span style='color:windowtext'>In the end it isn’t clear to me what exactly was the point of the exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2F5597;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'><span style='color:windowtext'>M<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> Forum [mailto:forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br><b>Sent:</b> June 22, 2016 6:20 AM<br><b>To:</b> forum@justnetcoalition.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [JNC - Forum] Report of the GCIG<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><br>It is my view, that these are just clever status quoist devices. They will say, a new social compact is required. But even World Economic Forum mouths such platitudes. But how will this social compact be made and internationalised, is what really matters. And they would say nothing about it it. Would it continue to be done through making 'high level' report after report like this one, populated and controlled by Northern powers, will it be made by having OECD do specialised Internet policy work, but not letting UN do it (almost all of global IG today, including this report, is aimed to stop any such thing). <br><br>I find any such report as basically dishonest and deliberately deluding that mentions all the right analytical points, that you quote, in a somewhat weakened manner from the normal neutral discourse, and then when it is time to say what is be done, leave things unclear. Speaking about new global social compacts, while actively pushing away globally democratic possibility (if you dont like the UN, come up with something else but which is democratic and treats everyone equally) and promoting non democratic forms like the OECD. See how many times OECD's work is quoted in the report - which is devoted to making a global Internet order as per the interests of the dominant North, while at the global level, the recommendation is clearly for no specific institutions devoted to Internet policy work... How did they reach this conclusion? Why then does OECD have such a devoted body for Internet policy, whose work they actually quote and promote. Nothing could be as shamelessly hegemonic. No, we do not need their versions of social compact, and not even their weakened analyses, which present half-truths to build credibility and then end up just promoting the status quo..<br><br>parminder </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wednesday 22 June 2016 06:27 PM, Richard Hill wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>The Global Commission on Internet Governance has released its report, see:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <a href="http://ourinternet.org/report">http://ourinternet.org/report</a> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Given that the chairman of the commission was Karl Bildt and that some of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the members are staunch proponents of the status quo, I was expecting that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the report would do little more that say that everything is fine.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>But that is not the case. In many respects, the report is consistent with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the positions taken by the Just Net Coalition.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I reproduce below some portions that I found worth singling out. There are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>no page numbers in the report, so I could not include page references.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Best,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Richard<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>=======================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>CORE ELEMENTS OF A SOCIAL COMPACT FOR A DIGITAL SOCIETY<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>There must be a mutual understanding between citizens and their state that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the state takes responsibility to keep its citizens safe and secure under<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the law while, in turn, citizens agree to empower the authorities to carry<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>out that mission, under a clear, accessible legal framework that includes<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sufficient safeguards and checks and balances against abuses. Business must<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be assured that the state respects the confidentiality of its data and they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>must, in turn, provide their customers the assurance that their data is not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>misused. There is an urgent need to achieve consensus on a social compact<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for the digital age in all countries. Just how urgent is shown by current<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>levels of concern over allegations of intrusive state-sponsored activities<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ranging from weakening of encryption to large-scale criminal activity to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>digital surveillance to misuse of personal data, and even to damaging cyber<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>attacks and disruption.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Governments should not create or require third parties to build back doors<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or compromise encryption standards, as these efforts would weaken the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Internet and fundamentally undermine trust. Efforts by the technical<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>community to incorporate privacy-and-security-enhancing solutions into all<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>standards and protocols of the Internet should be encouraged.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The Commission urges member states of the United Nations to agree not to use<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>cyber technology to attack the core infrastructure of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Governments seeking a peaceful and sustainable Internet should adopt and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>respect norms that help to reduce the incentive for states to use cyber<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>weapons. Governments should agree on infrastructure assets and services that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>must not be targeted by cyber attacks. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Businesses should purchase cyber insurance to cover the liability costs of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>breaches of their systems. Cyber liability insurance vendors can be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>persuasive in promoting best practices in the corporate sector. Cyber<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>premiums should be higher if best practices are not followed. Insurers need<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to have better data to appropriately identify and price cyber risk and to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>develop appropriate products. Government regulations should require routine,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>transparent reporting of technological problems to provide the data required<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for a transparent market-based cyber-insurance industry.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>There is a need to reverse the erosion of trust in the Internet brought<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>about by indiscriminate and non-transparent private practices such as the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>collection, integration and analysis of vast amounts of private information<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>about individuals, companies and organizations. Private surveillance based<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on "big data" is often conducted under the guise of a free service. ...<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Users should not be excluded from the use of software or services that allow<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>them to participate in the information age, and they should be offered the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>option of purchasing a service without having to agree to give the provider<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>access to their personal information. International rules are also required<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to ensure that the holders of large repositories of data are transparent<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>about how they collect, use and share user-generated data.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Interception of communications, collection, analysis and use of data over<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the Internet by law enforcement and government intelligence agencies should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be for purposes that are openly specified in advance, authorized by law<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(including international human rights law) and consistent with the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>principles of necessity and proportionality.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>... governments should use competition as a tool to expand Internet access<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>facilities to the maximum extent possible, while investing to ensure<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>availability when market forces prove insufficient.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The disruption to traditional jobs and skill requirements can create<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>economic hardship and civil discontent. Rather than attempting to preserve<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>old jobs by stifling innovation, governments should help workers adapt to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the new economic reality via skills training and educational programs.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The Internet has indeed reached a crossroads. Choices need to be made - and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>making no choice is itself a choice. It is all about who should have what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>power to control the future of the Internet.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Our advice is based on the belief that only a normative approach can address<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the myriad challenges facing Internet governance. We call on governments,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>private corporations, civil society, the technical community and individuals<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>together to create a new social compact for the digital age.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>There is a growing concern about the market power and data collection<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>capabilities and practices of the large Internet platform companies as well<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as other private data intermediaries.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The failure to incorporate security as an essential design feature by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>vendors and larger customers of the IoT raises concerns that its explosive<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>growth could result in the "weaponization of everything."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Legal thresholds for lawfully authorized access to communications data must<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be redefined to ensure that the aggregated collection of metadata - such as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an individual's full browsing history - are treated with the same respect<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for privacy as access to the actual content of a communication, and should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>only be made under judicial authority. In all cases, the principles of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>necessity and proportionality must be applied.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Governments should not compromise or require third parties to weaken or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>compromise encryption standards, for example, through hidden "backdoors"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>into the technology as such efforts would weaken the overall security of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>digital data flows and transactions.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Individual users of paid or so-called "free services" provided on the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Internet should know about and have some choice over the full range of ways<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in which their data will be deployed for commercial purposes. They should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not be excluded from the use of software or services customary for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>participation in the information age, and should be offered the option of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>purchasing the service without having to agree to give the provider access<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to their personal information. Terms of use agreements should be written in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a clear and accessible manner and should not be subject to change without<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the user's consent. Businesses should demonstrate accountability and provide<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>redress in the case of a security breach or a breach of contract.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>To assure the public that their data is being appropriately protected,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>states that do not already have comprehensive personal data protection<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>legislation and a privacy enforcement authority with legal enforcement<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>powers should take steps to create such regimes.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Governments should initiate efforts to develop international consensus on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>norms about how to deal with cases where the goal of protecting data comes<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>into conflict with the requirements of law enforcement or security agencies<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to investigate terrorist activity or attacks in an emergency situation. At a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>minimum, any solutions should be derived through a multi-stakeholder<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>process, broadly agreed, and must be subject to legal oversight, governed by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>principles of necessity, proportionality and avoidance of unintended<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>consequences.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Businesses should purchase cyber insurance to cover the liability costs of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>successful breaches of their systems.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The market for cyber insurance is immature in comparison to the seriousness<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of the threats, and the capital available to the industry is currently<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>inadequate to underwrite the full risk. Pricing the risk is difficult in the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>absence of reliable time series data, making it difficult for insurers to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>put a reliable figure on the likely losses from breaches.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>More research is urgently needed to support greater accuracy when pricing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>risk.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>To assist the public to understand and practice the essentials of cyber<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hygiene, governments should undertake significant campaigns to raise<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>awareness and develop the needed skills. Cyber-security awareness programs<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>should start early, for example, by incorporating cyber hygiene into primary<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and secondary education curriculums.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Consistent with the recognition that parts of the Internet constitute a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>global public good, the commission urges member states of the United Nations<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to agree not to use cyber weapons against core infrastructure of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Internet.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The disruptions resulting from the rapid spread of the sharing economy are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>already being felt.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>All levels of government (national, subnational, local), industry, civil<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>society and the technical community, need to be engaged on the new<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>regulatory challenges posed by the sharing economy.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Forum mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Forum@justnetcoalition.org">Forum@justnetcoalition.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum">http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>