FW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan

Wed May 23 07:41:09 EDT 2012

Bill, I don't think that you responded to this below as yet although of
course, I might have missed it.

The questions which were sincerely meant (I just don't know and haven't had
the opportunity to observe the discussions around these issues first hand),
are not I think trivial since it would appear that significant portions of
the US (and other) media and others seem to be taking the same positions as
yours i.e 
    1. equating "oversight through an appropriate, democratic and
participative multilateral body'" with "inter-governmental control over CIR"
(which don't on the face of it appear to be equivalent) and
    2. damning the suggestion of "oversight through an appropriate,
democratic and participative multilateral body'" because of support from
countries such as Iran and Pakistan (for which I couldn't find any evidence
(for Iran and Pakistan at least) after some fairly extensive searching on
Google--but perhaps I got the search terms wrong...

I'm asking for some specific references to justify either or both positions.

Tks,

Mike

 -----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:recent:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 12:50 AM
To: 'William Drake' : 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'
Subject: RE: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in
Pakistan

Actually Bill I did check Google with a variety of search terms and I
couldn't find any references to this naming Pakistan or Iran as specific
supporters of  "an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral
body.'" with or without the terms "appropriate" or "participative". Perhaps
with your evidently superior knowledge you could provide the specifics which
you appear to be quoting.

Also, am I correct in understanding you to be asserting that indicating a
support for "oversight" by "an appropriate, democratic and participative
multilateral body'" is synonomous with taking a position for
"inter-governmental control over CIR".  

I don't doubt that there is likely diplomatic code words involved here but
at least on the face of it "oversight" is not synomyous with "control" and
"appropriate" and "participative oversight" would suggest a process somewhat
different from that implied by a simple assertion of "inter-governmental
control".  But again you likely have superior knowledge here and some
evidence or references to support this would be appreciated.

Tks,

M

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] 
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:59 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in
Pakistan

Hi Mike 

On May 20, 2012, at 5:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

Bill,

Is this a fact that Iran and Pakistann have indicated that they  "would like
'the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical
infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and
participative multilateral body.'"

Uh, yes..?  Both governments have made statements publicly and privately
calling for intergovernmental control over CIR since WSIS phase I.
"Democratic" and "multilateral" have been consistent, the other words have
varied, sometimes "suitable," "inclusive" etc.  

If so would it be possible to share the reference and if possible a listing
of all the other countries that have similarly indicated this as a
preference.

Sorry, I don't have handy copies of the transcripts from every WSIS, WGIG,
IGF, CSTD, ITU etc. meeting in which they and others have expressed their
preferences, but I imagine if you dig around with a search engine of your
choice you should find some stuff.

Cheers

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] 
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:36 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in
Pakistan

Hi Mike,

Sorry, didn't think it was obscure.  These are among the governments that
would like "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical
infrastructure" to be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and
participative multilateral body."  There's not much chance that such a body
would produce a global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet
that would constrain them, when what they plainly want is a mechanism that
strengthens sovereign control and gives them international cover in taking
such actions. 

Best,

Bill

On May 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant 

to be) ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still 

escapes me...

(and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on 

to some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or 

something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more 

difficult for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way 

by for example, giving those internally in opposition an international 

agreement to point to/argue for before the courts; and also give those 

externally who disagree with those actions some specific context for 

them to exercise their disagreement; or have I missed something here.

M

-----Original Message-----

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William 

Drake

Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM

To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org

Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in

Pakistan

On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan 

http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-sh

u

tdown-in-pakistan.html

If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and 

logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, 

democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would 

not be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil 

monopolist that, with three other sites, controls "much of what is 

considered to be the Internet today by most people today".

On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

"The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names 

ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported.

The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using 

foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using 

foreign providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said.

If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and 

logical infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, 

democratic and participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not 

be forced to take unilateral action merely to shut out these evil 

monopolists...

We demand it!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120523/7d9e8f6a/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