[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation

[michael gurstein]

McTim,

As I've just replied to Avri who made the same arguments on a different
list...

What you are saying is of course, a cop out/diversion since it makes little
sense to make a blanket statement ("put all governments (with perhaps a few
exceptions) in this category") such as you have done and thus implicitly
draw an equivalency between the US Government and its powers and
inclinations and the government of, for example, Nauru... 

Until one makes that quite evident distinction then a statement such as
"keep governments as just one of many "multi-equal" stakeholders" tells us
little if anything since the USG is rather more than simply a "multi-equal
stakeholder" (and we need to figure out ways collectively how to respond and
globally govern this) while the government of Nauru is hardly relevant in
this context including as an "equal stakeholder" or whatever.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:05 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; Valeria Betancourt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some
other NGOs on enhanced cooperation

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:00 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Below is my response to the APC message (I'm currently an Associate
> (individual) member of APC.
>
>
<snip>
>
>
> I don't believe it is possible now to think about or take action in 
> the Internet governance space without recognizing the degree to which 
> that space is seen by certain parties (as articulated by various of 
> Snowden's NSA
> documents) as being of sovereign and "national security" level importance.


I would put all governments (with perhaps a few exceptions) in this in the
category of "certain parties".


> What that means is that what Internet governance mechanisms are 
> proposed/responded to have to be understood within the broader context 
> of global governance and the possible distribution of power/control 
> within that framework.


Not if you keep governments as just one of many "multi-equal" stakeholders.


>
>
>
> I would point you folks to the recent blogpost by Byron Holland the 
> Executive Director of the Canadian Internet Registry Authority (CIRA) 
> reflecting on recent events in the Internet governance space and how, 
> post-Snowden, all of that needs to be reconsidered...
>
> http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback
> =%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21
>

I disagree with Byron on this.

>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/pywp46b
>
>
>
> I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of the institutional 
> approaches identified in the ITfC document. But that some sort of 
> global (and globally
> authorized) mechanism is required to counter the very clear attempts 
> to design Internet governance in such a way as to ensure future and 
> permanent enshrinement of the dominance of certain national

all national, not just certain.

 and corporate interests is
> I believe manifestly evident. A "hands off the Internet" approach,  
> does I believe mitigate in direct opposition to the interests of civil 
> society and particularly civil society in LDC's in support of a free, 
> open, transparent and responsive Internet as a basis for overcoming 
> social and economic inequalities.


and many of us believe that a truly multi-equal stakeholdersim is in the
interests of CS, especially CS in LDCs.

So you are pro-free internet, but opposed to Internet Freedom?


>
>
>
> What Snowden/NSA makes clear

is that government security types will try to snoop into our comms no matter
what!


 I believe, is that if the Internet is to be
> developed as a resource for all rather than as a tool benefiting the 
> interests of only some then mechanisms which allow for the broadest 
> base of input into Internet governance need to be created

agreed, and that is why I spend time in the fora that are BUTOC, bottom up,
transparent, open and consensus driven.



-- how, what and by whom I
> think is what we need to be discussing--I think that Snowden has given 
> us sufficient insight to recognize that the question of whether such 
> is necessary and most certainly from a civil society perspective needs 
> no longer to be discussed.


Declaring victory and trying to close off this discussion still doesn't mean
that your analysis is correct!

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel