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

Wed Nov 28 12:53:12 EST 2012

No question, Suresh (and McTim) but you/they can't have it both ways i.e. vehemently denouncing regulation/governance ("keep your hand off the Internet") etc.etc. on the one hand and then practicing it (if only implicitly) on the other.  

I would have thought, if the option is in fact #2 (or #3) as of course, any rational actor would I believe have to accept; that if one doesn't like a particular venue -- what does one suggest as an appropriate (globally acceptable) alternative venue(s)--particularly since the current (default) position seems to be seen as unacceptably self-serving by so many.

M

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mai(o:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:34 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Ian Peter; Ginger Paque; <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [governance]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127

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/d656b346/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