[governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Dec 13 00:29:03 EST 2012
On Thursday 13 December 2012 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:25 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:24 PM, Salanieta T.
> Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> One of the challenges however is the polarisation between some
> commercially driven segments and governments over the taxation issues
> but will not get into that.
Why would we not get into that? I did not understand. The polarisation
is quite understandable and structural, isnt it. You cannot expect the
big business to side on paying taxes, against not paying them, can you.
> To discuss harmonisation is not the solution
Again, cant understand the basis of your statement. Why can there not be
harmonisation of national and global law, whereby, for instance, Bermuda
is not able to provide the haven it does, and google is not able to
avail of it, even if Bermuda does provide. How easily we push aside a
redistributional issue - of greatest significance to the less powerful -
saying lets not talk about it, it is not practical and so on.... Are you
saying such redistributional issues do not make to the grade of global
IG issues. (which is what i really see happening mostly in global IG spaces)
> in my view as my assessment as there is no way that parties will come
> together too much is at stake for them and it is in the billions of
> revenue and sadly for most people this is what makes the world go round.
So, since business would not ever agree to higher taxes, or even paying
any at all if it can manage that, you seem to be suggesting that we give
up such issues?? that is where multistakeholderism collapses, like it
would always when faced with an issue of redistribution and not just a
system-management kind. I am shocked at the fatalism implied in 'that is
what makes the world go around'... So, is that your message to those
left out, and marginalised. Give up the hopes of a socially and
economically just system and society, because we have
multistakeholderism now, and business must agree to everything... bad
luck if you dont like it, but that is what makes the world go around...
and we the civil society are here to help the world go around as it in
any case does go around....
>
> What we would be better off doing is a thorough assessment of all the
> layers and pointing out the dangers that highlight regulatory trends
> globally
Dangers, and nothing at all about the good possibilities from
regulation, right! Is that what your politics is limited to. Ensuring
proper distribution of tax accrual from global business is also a global
regulatory issue - and a positive one. But you want to only look at the
dangers.
I well understand this model and paradigm of governance, which is why I
resist it so much. Many things at WCIT do threaten people's rights, and
they must be fought. But, all this that is being orchestrated at and
around WCIT is also a part of a larger effort to let go of all
governance or regulation that can have a re-distributional impact, or
even just a positive impact on the more marginalized, which could be
merely of ensuring a level playing field... Basically, a big NO to
global economic and social rights.
> and also point out threats to openess and why it is in the world's
> interests that we continue to have an open and free internet but at
> the same time fulfil our core responsible citizens as good citizens or
> global citizens or netizens but some would argue that this is utopia
> and a suburb of Absurdistan.
>
> Even beyond the WCIT, stakeholders need to reflect on the "bigger
> picture" - meaning both civil society, private sector and the public
> sector - multistakeholder has to transcend getting people of diverse
> compositions into the same room but recognising and respecting the
> diverse roles that each plays so that there is real harmonisation and
> not a legislated one.
There will always be need for legislation. I shudder to think of a
polity where nothing can be done without full agreement of the most
powerful. That is a kind of neo-feudalism. That is not how progressive
change takes place... And, yes, this is not about WCIT. That would be
over tomorrow. It is about what we are going to do beyond it.
parminder
>
> 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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>
>> [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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B41%20%2822%29%20534%2099%2045>
>>
>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 <tel:%2B41%20%2822%29%20594-85-44>
>>
>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 <tel:%2B41%2079%20595%205468>
>>
>> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20640-5430>
>>
>> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both
>> here: http://meetme.so/nashton*
>>
>> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse
>> linguistic mangling.
>>
>>
>> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch"
>> <apisan at unam.mx <mailto:apisan at unam.mx>> wrote:
>>
>> Jovan,
>>
>> thanks for doing a pretty innovative thing here:
>> discussing ideas. Further, bringing a fresh approach and
>> actual expertise.
>>
>> My long-standing concern for analogies between Internet
>> governance and the laws of the sea is that the Internet
>> is much more a built environment than the sea (not that
>> the sea is all natural and in fixed form forever, immune
>> to our contamination and our imagintion.)
>>
>> So Internet governance refers not only to rules etc. to
>> live on the existing Internet, but also has to be useful
>> as guidance in its expansion and development. To abuse
>> your analogy, it's not only about shipping, fishing, and
>> mining, but also about how to actually make the oceans of
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> That brings you to points like: you can use Ostromian
>> theory to understand the tragedy of the commons in
>> fisheries; but can you extend it to Internet governance?
>> What are the limitations? Can you address concerns from
>> liberals to socialists in a new framework without
>> actually changing the salinity or wanting to reverse the
>> flow of the Humboldt current?
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>
>> ! !! !!! !!!!
>>
>> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
>>
>> +52-1-5541444475 <tel:%2B52-1-5541444475> FROM ABROAD
>>
>> +525541444475 <tel:%2B525541444475> DESDE MÉXICO
>>
>> SMS +525541444475 <tel:%2B525541444475>
>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>
>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Desde:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] en nombre
>> de Jovan Kurbalija [jovank at diplomacy.edu
>> <mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu>]
>> *Enviado el:* viernes, 07 de diciembre de 2012 08:37
>> *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; McTim
>> *Asunto:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit
>> Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!
>>
>> Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and
>> ICANN on a cruise ship, we may have 'beach or floating
>> governance'. Internet governance could be fun!
>>
>>
>> I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our
>> common destiny. We are all passengers of ICANNia or
>> ITUnia or...*?* Metaphors are also useful to remove
>> our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. In
>> another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist
>> Absurdistan (here is the map of this fast-growing country
>> <http://diplo.smugmug.com/ILLUSTRATIONS/Posters-1/4464706_T4FW6r#%21i=1104113260&k=2GsD8hV&lb=1&s=A>).
>>
>>
>> But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN
>> cruise ship won't solve the problem of
>> internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to freedom
>> of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the
>> ship. All relations on the ship are regulated by the
>> national law of the ship's flag. ICANNia has to be
>> registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of
>> convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on
>> the ICANNia is regulated by national law, with no major
>> differences from any other land-based entity (company,
>> organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in whatever
>> direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made
>> by the captain according to the rules of the flag's
>> state. Extrapolating from the role of the captain on the
>> ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. The
>> cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we
>> consider different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc.
>>
>> These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book
>> /Mare Liberum/ that established the "open sea" concept
>> four centuries ago as opposed to the idea of a /Mare
>> Nostrum/. **His relevance for our time is sobering. If we
>> replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book
>> on the Internet. Grotius was a very interesting
>> personality.** Besides being one of the first
>> international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the
>> 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a
>> lot about social contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and
>> others). As a matter of fact, his social contract theory
>> could be applicable to the Internet.
>>
>> When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an
>> interesting interplay with the political masters of his
>> era. He believed in open sea, but Dutch and British
>> authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his
>> doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions
>> to develop trade and colonial empires. Grotius provided
>> them with the necessary doctrine or 'political software'.
>> However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs
>> rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it
>> was counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing
>> maritime powers, he managed to convince them that it was
>> in their best interest to 'tame' their comparative powers
>> and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond the
>> 17th century. Everything else has written the history,
>> which proved Grotius right. We can draw many parallels,
>> with the necessary caution that historical analogies
>> should be handled with care.
>>
>> While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we
>> should review how we debate Internet governance issues.
>> Grotius was a great scholar who mastered the existing
>> rules before he started changing them. We, on the other
>> hand, use well-defined and developed concepts in a
>> relaxed way. A few examples...
>>
>> As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea
>> does not translate to an open Internet. In many respects,
>> it can lead in the opposite direction (Internet Nostrum).
>>
>> Another example is the role of states' responsibility in
>> the Internet era. This is a well-defined concept in
>> international law. If we want states to be responsible
>> for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g.
>> cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools
>> to ensure their responsibility (mainly state control,
>> regulation, and surveillance). Most writings on state
>> responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e.
>> the limited role of the state. With all the creativity
>> and imagination in the world, we still cannot have it
>> both ways.
>>
>> The most topical example of the need for evidence-based
>> policy is the case of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN.
>> There are very clear rules for the protection of the Red
>> Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 years ago
>> and have been followed, without reservation, on national
>> and international levels. ICANN was right in protecting
>> the Red Cross name but made the mistake of putting it
>> together with organisations that do not enjoy the same
>> status (the International Olympic Committee).
>>
>> Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to
>> the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have
>> first to master them. I see here an important role for
>> academic and civil society communities. If we had advised
>> ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC submissions
>> separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy
>> confusion and wasted time.
>>
>> The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy
>> research as the key theme for the next meeting?
>>
>> Regards, Jovan
>>
>>
>> On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic,
>> perhaps ICANN could buy this cruise ship as a HQ:
>>
>> http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html
>>
>> It would help solve the problem of
>> internationalisation, be a permanent host for ICANN
>> meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all)
>> and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer,
>> plus it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!!
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates
>> where it is. A route indicates how we get there."
>> Jon Postel
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Jovan Kurbalija, PhD*
>>
>> Director, DiploFoundation
>>
>> Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva *| *Switzerland
>>
>> *Tel.* +41 (0) 22 7410435
>> <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%2022%207410435> *| Mobile.* +41 (0)
>> 797884226 <tel:%2B41%20%280%29%20797884226>
>>
>> *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu
>> <mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu> *| Twitter:*@jovankurbalija
>>
>> *The latest from Diplo:*today – this week – this month
>> <http://www.diplomacy.edu/currently> *l*Conference on
>> Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012)
>> <http://www.diplomacy.edu/conferences/innovation>
>> *l***new online courses <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ____________________
>> Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>
>> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International
>> Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net
>> <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net>)
>>
>> Member, ICANN Board of Directors
>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>> <tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2011%2088%2033%2032>
>>
>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes"
>> Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright.
>> When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and
>> conditions of business.
>>
>> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales.
>> Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B
>> 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244
>> <tel:%2B44%20845%20600%205244>. Email
>> enquiries at analysysmason.com
>> <mailto:enquiries at analysysmason.com> or visit
>> www.analysysmason.com <http://www.analysysmason.com>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright.
>> When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and
>> conditions of business.
>>
>> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales.
>> Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B
>> 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244
>> <tel:%2B44%20845%20600%205244>. Email
>> enquiries at analysysmason.com
>> <mailto:enquiries at analysysmason.com> or visit
>> www.analysysmason.com <http://www.analysysmason.com>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828 <tel:%2B679%203544828>
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121213/4bba3f55/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