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

[Ian Peter]

This really strikes a chord with me – Bertrand wrote

”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. “

Perhaps a good thing to bear in mind for this list for 2013! This caucus presents a great diversity of viewpoints, sometimes seemingly opposite – and that is one of the great strengths of this group. Vive la difference, and may we not just tolerate the different viewpoints here, but accept that the diversity represented is our great potential source of strength!

Ian Peter



From: Bertrand de La Chapelle 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:20 AM
To: Avri Doria 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance!

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 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.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





-- 
____________________
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121219/f4ed2afb/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