[governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Tue Nov 27 20:34:20 EST 2012
As I said the status quo does not equate to laissez faire, and tha national laws, cross border enforcement and various conventions all exist, and some of these mechanisms at least significantly predate the Internet.
Yes there is scope for improvement. Only, what set of value add does ITU bring to the table in these areas?
--srs (iPad)
On 28-Nov-2012, at 6:37, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://mashable.com/2012/08/03/us-un-internet/
>
> United States to UN: Keep Your Hands Off the Internet
> Alex Fitzpatrick August 3, 2012
>
> The United States has a clear message for the International Telecommunications Union, the United Nations’ agency in charge of telecommunications: We want Internet governance to stay exactly how it already is.
>
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:48 PM
> To: Ian Peter; Ginger Paque; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
>
> I am sorry but nobody even among the fans of the status quo (which does happen to be multistakeholder to a larger extent than the ITU is) will argue for a laissez faire and completely unregulated Internet with possibly utopian lessigisms like 'code is law' substituting for regulation.
>
> Several national cyber crime laws have broadly similar scope and language on the specific circumstances that warrant cross border and extra territorial application.
>
> Meanwhile, a country's laws will be entirely applicable to companies doing business in that country. PayPal and wiki leaks. Or earlier yahoo china (actually a chinese company alibaba that is a local business partner of yahoo) turning over a dissidents information to the Chinese police and causing yahoo's ceo to have to apologize to the poor man's wife before a Senate subcommittee.
>
> Coming specifically to cybersecurity there are international multilateral instruments such as the Budapest convention that provide a framework for cooperation among cyber crime enforcement agencies.
>
> A significant point to be considered is whether an organization that comprises of civil agencies (telecom regulators) will be effectively able to set and enforce any sort of policy on cybercrime when a significant part of it is worked by law enforcement, besides a plethora of other agencies within the country
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> To: "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>, <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
> Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 5:46 AM
>
>
> Disagree with Ginger (that doesnt happen often!)
>
> no regulation of the internet period means to me
>
> * large corporations control what happens via market power
> * paypal can suspend all payments to wikileaks or whoever offends their sensibilities with no ramifications or checks and balances and political judgements of corporations can determine access
> * paedophilia, hate mail etc are completely unchecked
> * cybercrime is OK
> * all governments can act unilaterally to block sites according to whatever power they can exert on either corporations or their local ISP industry.
>
> Frankly, to me this is a horror scenario.
>
> But where I do agree with Ginger is aiming for a tolerable version of #2.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> From: Ginger Paque
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael gurstein
> Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Michael Kende
> Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
>
> I think we have to push hard for #1, and hope we get a tolerable version of #2.
>
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 November 2012 17:45, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But surely that is the point of civil society, not to be a cheer leader for the status quo but rather to push governments and others towards their higher angels.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:10 PM
> To: gurstein at gmail.com; 'Michael Kende'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
>
>
>
> Of course you will have to expect that not all proposals submitted will be driven by pure altruism.
>
> Narrower interests... Protectionism, politics, whatever else will inform several proposals.
>
> And you can't rely on the major players being purely driven by altruism, I'm afraid.
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
> To: "'Michael Kende'" <Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com>, <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127
> Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 2:26 AM
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
> We can do some thought experiments around what option #2 would look like as
> for example, to deal with the issues of global/natonal security on the
> Internet but at the end of the day my guess is that it would look rather
> like a UN agency except one that had been updated from 19th century modes of
> operation (and assumptions about appropriate structures of governance) to
> ones more reflective of 21st century modes/assumptions and technology.
>
>
>
> How we get from here to there is of course, a challenge but if the major
> players are in fact operating in good faith with an overarching concern for
> the health and well being of the Internet infrastructure as a global public
> good rather than pursuing narrow national or commercial interests then
> developing a suitable set of mechanisms shouldn't be impossible.
>
>
>
> And you are right about "incumbents"--I was of course referring to dominant
> Internet players rather than telco incumbents.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:20 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Lee W McKnight'
> Subject: RE: [governance]
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320
> 121127
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
>
>
> What would #2 look like? Who would be responsible, what jurisdiction would
> they have, what hole would they fill? I think it is possible to prefer 1
> over 3 even if you might prefer #2 to emerge, but there is no broadly
> articulated alternative, so what would you propose?
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> PS since a number of commercial incumbents are in fact behind one of the
> proposals to add Internet issues to the ITRs, I do not think your last
> statement is strictly accurate.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:03 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Lee W McKnight'
> Subject: RE: [governance]
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320
> 121127
>
>
>
> I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in the
> WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories they would fall
> into:
>
> 1. no regulation of the Internet period
>
> 2. possible regulation/global governance of the Internet in
> certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU
>
> 3. regulation of the Internet in certain identified issue
> areas by the ITU
>
>
>
> It seems to me that a lot of the loudest voices in the discussion have come
> from those whose broad position is #1 but in a feat of legerdemaine they
> have managed to stampede many of those whose ultimate position would be #2
> (based on a reasoned assessment of the broad needs of the global community)
> to support them by arguing that there were in fact only two options #1 and
> #3.
>
>
>
> That option #1 (i.e. the default option) would seem to strongly favour the
> current dominant geo-political and commercial incumbents is of course purely
> accidental.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:44 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance]
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320
> 121127
>
>
>
> In case you missed it...today's Reuters article re WCIT.
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to
> our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business.
>
> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered
> office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number
> 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit
> www.analysysmason.com
>
> _____
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20121128/b816db95/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list