[governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on.

For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals.

Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN?  Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting.

--srs (iPad)

On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that.
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM
> To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead
>  
> The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. 
> 
> --srs (htc one x) 
> 
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch>
> Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead
> Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM
> 
> 
> Hi Norbert,
> 
> the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was 
> that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere.
> 
> International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible 
> stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of 
> the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set 
> principles and protocols for addressing internet issues.
> 
> That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a 
> significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo.
> 
> It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder 
> to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each 
> other, as well as with other stakeholders.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead
> 
> I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as
> questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet
> governance”.
> 
> Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000
> schrieb Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> 
> > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the
> > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the
> > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your
> > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by
> > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated
> > via the existence of states.  Wow, what an assumption. So in the
> > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or
> > between China and Laos. Hmmmm.
> >
> > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said
> > they were.
> >
> >
> > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter
> > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it
> > is dead
> >
> > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States
> > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of
> > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially
> > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs.
> > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it?
> >
> > Regards
> > Diego
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter
> > <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote: Well
> > stated Milton!
> >
> > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is
> > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international
> > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130830/84ffa2e7/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