[governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed.

[Erick Iriarte Ahon]

Hi

In 2001, James Graham proposed the creation of "Group for the 
Internationalization of Cyberspace (GIC)"
[The Internationalization of Cyberspace for a Legal E-Qual World: A 
Latin American Initiative]

He said: "The present initiative aims to resolve most of the actual 
legal problems that are discussed on national and international 
level. Internet being transnational by its nature, regulators do 
accord that there is a real need for some international legislation. 
However, their will of protection of sovereignty does not permit 
today to find a global solution. Although, some treaties have been 
achieved (e.g. the Cybercrime Treaty of the European Council) or will 
be achieved (e.g. the Jurisdiction Convention of the Conference of 
the Hague), no international organization does treat Internet and its 
issues as a whole. Beneath specific topics like e-signatures or 
cybercrimes, there are other issues like the digital divide and the 
respect of fundamental freedoms.".

You can find the proposal and Project in:
http://www.alfa-redi.com/gic/

Six years ago, and for some reason, the document only appear in some 
articles in LAC (i think the same reason that have only a few LAC 
organizations in another proposals).

Maybe you can use the proposal for the discuss.

Erick Iriarte Ahon



At 01:50 p.m. 25/09/2007, Dan Krimm wrote:
>At 11:07 AM -0700 9/25/07, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >Words don't achieve power by the number of their authors but by the
> >righteousness of their meaning. John Perry Barlow's Declaration of
> >Independence for Cyberspace and the Cluetrain Manifesto are but two
> >examples of similar documents, drafted by a few and adopted by many.
>
>
>I agree with Robert, though, that if you want these powerful words to have
>a tangible effect in the world of political power one must organize
>politically and mobilize a broad constituency to talk about the ideas and
>ultimately push for their adoption in law.
>
>Words may inspire people from the top down but political power is
>ultimately expressed from the bottom up and must be instantiated in
>legislation, regulation and judiciary enforcement in order to take effect
>tangibly in a society, especially in areas where markets alone simply
>cannot suffice.
>
>It's the "adopted by many" part that requires more than just the words.
>The point here is to get public policy to reflect this agenda, and in fact
>the Barlow Declaration and Cluetrain are not consistently expressed in
>terms of law at this time.
>
>This is a persistent disconnect in the policy dynamics of the tech
>community.  Silicon Valley and The Beltway still view each other mostly
>with apprehension (in the US, and I believe this dynamic extends
>internationally as well).  This is a systemic problem of communities that
>are not currently engaged in a meaningful exchange of ideas, and I think it
>can (and therefore should) be improved.
>
>Those in the tech community who believe that invention and rhetoric and
>markets alone (should I add "consensus processes"?) can solve problems of
>political power are fooling themselves.  And have no doubt that politics
>are *intimately* and *fundamentally* involved in ICT policies by now, here
>in the Information Society.
>
>Politics are not mocked.  :-)
>
>Dan
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance