[governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

[Lee W McKnight]

I agree, reading tea leaves, it is notable the US statement pointed to 'Best Bits' and IGF.

Re Internet Rights and Principles, fyi I am folding the 10 into the WiGiT v0.2 Open Specs to be released next week at an industry event in Orlando, even as the governments hang in Dubai.
Meaning we will - sort of - have gotten Wall Street and tech industry CIOs more or less accepting IRP without even knowing it, since they'll likely have not read carefully that part of our fine print.  ; ) Of course it's all iterative drafts so significance is unclear. But it is better if mobile cloud to edge services come with rights and principles, than not, right.

I'll share pointers to at least some of those docs next week.

Lee
________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:01 PM
To: 'John Curran'
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: RE: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

+1

And I think the just released statement by the US delegation to WCIT<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/necessity-inclusive-transparent-and-participatory-internet> begins some significant movement in the direction of those processes…

Now how to capitalize on this and its general support for the "Best Bits statement<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/>" (which includes that "Fundamental to the framing of public policy (for the Internet) must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights..."); perhaps starting by revisiting the OECD Internet policy principles<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/21/48289796.pdf> to resolve the areas of CS concern which led to CS not signing onto the final OECD document<http://csisac.org/CSISAC_PR_06292011.pdf>; and also beginning a process of becoming more globally inclusive in this development (as for example using the IRP statement of Internet Rights & Principles<http://irpcharter.org/campaign/> which have a strong anchor in Human Rights/the UDHRD as a conceptual/normative foundation).

Beginning with the above but then initiating a much broader and more inclusive global norm-setting process as for example, through a reformed and much more inclusive IGF (designed to be something other than a place to swap business cards and chat) or towards an update of the WSIS declaration in light of what has transpired in the last ten years or so…

M

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:15 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:

That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them.

Agreed.

The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we lack good mechanisms
for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied to a global scope.
There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the context of a single
country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society on their behalf, to
"bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in lots of attention, and
sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.)

In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive discussion of the various
public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet communications on a global
scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in participation, and
transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little bit of a challenge in
accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is appropriate public
policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of governments, and yet we are
collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly connected world)

If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and the statements were
made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they would quite likely be
considered in development of the various technical standards and policies that we need
to keep the Internet running.  Likewise, if folks working on such standards and policies
took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware of the ongoing
developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet practices and the
globally accepted principles in any given public policy area.

/John

p.s.  Disclaimers apply.  My views alone.  Use of this email may trigger visions and/or
produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms.  Use sparingly and
seek appropriate medical treatment as needed.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121201/311b07da/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