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

Tue Dec 18 11:20:33 EST 2012

Avri,

I see your point. Let me rephrase somewhat to explain what I meant:

- the current meme is going like: "this is a Digital Cold War", and the
natural follow-up is: "Whose side are you on?" (remember Matt
Bianco's<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU4H87kjl90>song? :-), forcing
people into a sterile black-and-white alternative

- my formulation would be: "how can we prevent this from becoming a Digital
Cold War", and this leads to: "how do we manage commons"? and "how to
handle shared responsibilities".

I believe this is more likely to lead to constructive solutions.

I know the human brain likes simple dichotomies. It has even been an
evolutionary survival competence. But tens of millions of dead people
throughout history show what it can lead to in complex societies when it
gets out of control. I consciously and voluntarily try not to fall in that
trap in the case of Internet governance. And now is a moment to be aware of
this, as we assess the outcome of WCIT and its consequences for future
debates.

We (the people of the world) have the power to frame description of
situations and objectives in a way that helps solve issues. If we do not do
it consciously, we become all prisoners of the power of words, hostages of
the most radical among us and lose control of our collective destiny.

My two cents.

B.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> 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.comwrote:****
> >>
> >> 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
>

-- 
____________________
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")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121218/f3590d84/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