[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation

[John Curran]

On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:11 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Do not be so impatient to jump at new ideas with guns and pistols! Still I am happy to elaborate a bit on a small part of it, as many other things have to be taken in consideration here.
> 
> ;-)


Excellent (and I by no means intended to "ambush" you; I was simply trying 
to understand your proposal and reasoning)

> It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. 

I have no difficulty with the word legitimacy, but I do believe that any group of 
folks can collectively work on problems with "legitimacy" - that is inherent to 
rights of free movement and association.  Concerns about "legitimacy" of any
voluntary and open discussion is misplaced, as the outcomes themselves are
ideas to be freely picked up (or not) and used (or not) via voluntarily mechanisms.   
To my knowledge, any proposed solutions developed by 1net are no more binding  
on anyone than solutions from Best Bits, IGF, or or any topical seminar.
 
Now, if you are talking about parties who intend to make mandatary choices on 
behalf of others, then the use of words like legitimacy, representation and equity
become particularly important (but such binding outcomes do not align with my
understanding of 1net's role; they might be part of your "supreme international
body, no?)

> According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys bother about it?" Indeed he belongs to the Asymmetrics that do not have any specific consideration for 'privacy'. His business (Google's) is to exploit our privacy for the need of advertisers. Google is being copied by many, so far never been equalized or overpassed. Google did so well, that they made a fortune out of violating our privacy, destroying by the same token many independent media that suddenly were not able to compete in the face of advertisers. Good for Google though. Google brought many other tools and norms to the world, but it was not without huge returns for itself. You know that around the world there are different perceptions of privacy and the way law can consider that 'our' data, including metadata belong to each one of us.

EU Directive 95/46/EC is directive which specifies a now widely accepted norm.

> Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in GENEVA. Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, or any other sort of violation. You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. The expression of Internet Human Rights comes from where? From my observation it came out of the US State Department. Alec Ross whom I interviewed before he quitted his job as Senior Digital Advisor to Secretary Clinton had a smile hearing my question about these 'rights' . He  confessed on the record me that these Internet or Digital Human rights did not exist but that the expression was getting 'support' as you said earlier. Again, this support is very questionable, as we don't know who are the supporters, if they represent more than themselves, and, at the end of the day, if they have any legitimacy. Privacy is not specific to so-called Internet Human Rights. Privacy is an hold asset to human rights.
> 
> Norms and standards are 'applicable', but do you understand "applicable" in the technical sense meaning 'doable'? Or 'applicable' in the sense of law, meaning possibly enforced with the intervention of justice and police force. These are complete different ideas. 

Correct; hence my request to you regarding scope and mode of your postulated 
"supreme international body"

> Law, national and international are part of the IG debate, and so far the Asymmetrics have managed to escape them. Law would be the ultimate villain. Law and governments. This has to come to an end, when you consider spamming, surveillance, cyberwar...
> 
> I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of values, common values, and not just norms and standards. 

It would be nice to see something perhaps more detailed, and in particular how the values being
set would intersect (or not) existing institutions.  I do not believe you addressed that question in
your response, but will await your ongoing refinement of the idea and can discuss when it is ready.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.
-------------- 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