[governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership

[Norbert Bollow]

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and
> around it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal
> point I think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers,
> Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN
> General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form,
> participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by
> the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how
> intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how
> how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is.....

I agree that there is a need for some kind of structure and process
that takes the discussions at the IGF as an input and creates outputs
suitable for direct feeding into the various institutions and processes
that make policy decisions.

Parminder's proposal is to model this on OECD's CCICP, while I'm
proposing to model it on the IETF (details on WisdomTaskForce.org )

What are the advantages of each of the two approaches?

I'd suggest that the more bottom-up “Wisdom Task Force” (WisdomTF for
short) approach has the advantages of

1) a bottom-up organization being easier to create especially in the
current climate where there is strong opposition of any organization
that aims at strengthening global Internet governance (those who can
expect to lose power when public interest oriented governance is
strengthened, and their friends, are of course opposing), and

2) by modeling on IETF it is much easier to take the step of making all
the important drafting processes 100% Internet based, which is
necessary to ensure that those who don't have a travel budget can fully
participate, and

3) further, by modeling on IETF it is easier to create a system and
culture in which working group deadlocks (that can occur when in a
working group there is too little fundamental agreement on objectives
etc.) can be resolved by forking the working group if necessary.

> And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some
> real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been
> around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes
> privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly
> were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens.
> Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well....
>
> What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak 
> about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these 
> guarantees operate, and the such.

+1

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept