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

Tue Dec 18 09:56:12 EST 2012

Sorry, this was only for Matthias, whom I support in his ideas!

Wolfgang Benedek

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:48
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; Bertrand de la Chapelle
Betreff: AW: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!

Dear Parminder,

The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is needed.

The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful.

The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather conflict, divisions and standstill.

Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” (http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true).

So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international legal principles.

The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) exemplify a human rights-oriented approach.

It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai didn’t work out.

Kind regards
Matthias

--

Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard)
Institute of International Law and International Relations
University of Graz, Austria
T | +43 316 380 6711
E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at<mailto:matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>
Blog<http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/#%21/MCKettemann> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann> | Google+<https://plus.google.com/u/0/116310540881122884114/posts>

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Bertrand de la Chapelle
Betreff: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!

Dear Bertrand/ Others
On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com<mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Matthias,

I agree with your thesis.

Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about
"...crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility."
Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that simply  "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services".

This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'.

Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!!

parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121218/e07edf43/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