[governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Wed Dec 12 23:30:42 EST 2012 

you misspelled "fortunately"

I don't have any confidence at all in the CIRP or its wording.

--srs (iPad)

On 13-Dec-2012, at 9:55, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>> <snip>
>> 
>> If we continue with the example that Parminder raised in relation to addressing IPR violations where the "subject" in this case the "content" is in "transit"-  this is why countries around the world at least as far as IPRs have been pushing harmonisation of their laws.
> 
> Sala, 
> Harmonisation of laws on IPR, which serves powerful interests, but not on other areas - like tax accruals (see your own google tax evasion posting), global net neutrality, consumer protection vis a vis global digital companies and so on...
> 
> And this is what global Internet related public policy making is all about, from which so many of us rebound instinctively ... 
> 
> India's CIRP proposal described its intent as follows
> 
> The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi­stakeholder  mechanism is not to "control the Internet" or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the Internet,  but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and  participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally acceptable, and  globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and  well­functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples' lives everywhere. (emphasis added)
> 
> The other way of global harmonisation, as US and OECD wants, is for these powerful countries to make policies and then arm twist others to join in.... 
> 
> Civil society will need to take a view on what kind of 'global harmonisation' do they want. What is your view?
> 
> Unfortunately, till now most of the global civil society have generally sided with the powerful in the above regard. 
> 
> 
> parminder 
> 
>>  There are massive implications on openness etc.
>> 
>> Sala 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Bertrand and Nick,
>>> 
>>>  <snip_
>>> 
>>> The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded in OECD countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one country and headed for another, and has nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see for instance, http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut
>>> 
>>> There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border measures' envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit seizures of third party goods.
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM
>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear Nick, 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Bertrand
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. 
>>> 
>>> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential).
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch).
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> 
>>> Geneva Representative
>>> 
>>> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
>>> 
>>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
>>> 
>>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>>> 
>>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 
>>> 
>>> USA DID:
>>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121213/76ee7a19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

More information about the Governance mailing list