FW: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice

[Michael Gurstein]

I'm at this point indifferent as to the need for an IGC statement on
Wikileaks, in part for the reasons that McTim mentions below i.e. to whom
would such a statement be addressed.

On the other hand, precisely because of McTim's answer to the question I
think we should be focussing all of our efforts on producing the broad
statement of principles re: IG which Parminder and others have been
proposing.

If anything the current spreading chaos and unpredictability around
Wikileaks has meant that the need for such an overarching global IG
framework has probably become very very clear to many of the dominant
Internet players. 

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:46 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the
WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice


On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:
>
>
> Will IGC want to issue a statement on this?


Who will we issue such a statement to?


>
> This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, 
> informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human 
> rights, is urgently required. The same process would be the place for 
> redress in case of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present 
> case.

I just don't have the same faith that you seem to have that governments will
sign on to give up sovereignty on these issues. We all saw the fights at
WSIS, and that wasn't even binding! Will the Pakistanis agree that they
can't censor youtube? Will the Chinese agree to dismantle the Great
Firewall?  Will the USA stop taking seizing domains due to alleged IP
violations?  I think not on all of the above.

>
> If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, 
> perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go 
> beyond just making process related statements, which often attract the 
> cynical judgment


Cynical or realistic?

> that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear 
> connections to real substantive global IG issues.
>

I've never said self-serving.

I think the headline is misleading, and follows the same logic those in IGC
use when they want to give too much power to governments.  Why suggest to
them that they can "shut down the net", we should know by now that they
cannot (well, except for North Korea).


-- 
Cheers,

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t