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

Avri Doria avri at Ella.com
Tue Dec 18 10:25:29 EST 2012 

But, if it really is a digital cold war, saying that it isn't, can be just as self defeating. 

Let's analyze before deciding which it is. 

Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

>I anticipate a great journalistic attraction for the meme "a Digital Cold
>War".
>
>It is an abusive oversimplification and worse, it presents a big risk of a
>self-fulfilling prophecy if people begin to think in that framework. The
>"us vs them" behavior on both sides, the "with us or against us", the cyber
>arms race, the fight between radical approaches, both caricatured to the
>extreme, unfortunately prevent a more balanced, cautious, and respectful
>approach that enables joint management of the new commons, rather than
>attempts to carve out territories in cyberspace.
>
>Some thinking is needed to find better formulations. And citizens'
>interests in all regions need to be the starting point. Civil society has a
>responsibility in there. Let's avoid being held hostage to the extreme
>views from both sides.
>
>B.
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (
>matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>
>> 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****
>>
>> 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] *Im Auftrag von *parminder
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17
>> *An:* 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>____________________
>Bertrand de La Chapelle
>Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (
>www.internetjurisdiction.net)
>Member, ICANN Board of Directors
>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
>"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")
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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