[governance] And yet more legal tangles...
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Mon Jun 30 14:18:06 EDT 2014
-----Original Message-----
From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On
Behalf Of Gary W Kenward
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:03 PM
To: rhill at hill-a.ch
Cc: Internet Policy ISOC List
Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Human Rights CouncilInternet
humanrightsresolution
Regarding extra-territorial jurisdiction, a provincial judge in British
Columbia, Canada, just made a ruling that Google had to a company named
Datalink from its search engine results. And, yes, the ruling is intended to
apply to all of Googles domains.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ordered-by-b-c-judge-t
o-block-website-from-search-results-1.2679824
This should be interesting.
Gary
On 2014.06.30, at 12:44 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> Dear Nicolas,
>
> Thank you very much for this. I much appreciate the ISOC submission,
> it is excellent.
>
> And I also found the EFF submission to be excellent, it is at:
>
>
> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/ElectronicFrontierFounda
> tion
> .pdf
>
> The EFF submission argues that states have responsibilities outside
> their own territory, it analysis US and EU law and explains why the 13
> principles at <necessaryandproportionate.org> should be adopted.
>
> There are many other submissions, they are at:
>
>
> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/Contributions.aspx#sta
> tes
>
> A suggestion for the future: could you (ISCO staff) please inform us
> that
> (1) inputs are requested (2) that ISOC is preparing a submission and
> (3) send us the submission when it is submitted.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org]On
> Behalf Of Nicolas Seidler
> Sent: lundi, 30. juin 2014 14:47
> To: Jovan Kurbalija
> Cc: Internet Policy ISOC List; Gary W Kenward
> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Human Rights CouncilInternet
> humanrightsresolution
>
>
> Thanks a lot Nick, Jovan and others for the many insightful points.
>
> The Internet Society has been participating in the HRC over the past 2
> years or so. Back in 2012, we actively participated in the drafting
> sessions of HRC Res 20/8, where we supported the introduction of the
> notion of the "open Internet" in the Resolution (which is now also
> well reflected in the follow-up Resolution 26/L.14.).
>
> In the past we have also co-organized side-sessions during the HRC
> (including one on the issue of online trust, some two weeks before the
> Snowden disclosures:
> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/06/freedom-security-and-trust).
>
> More recently, we made a submission to the Office of the High
> Commissioner on Human Rights in their preparation for the digital
> surveillance report to be release in September, where we focused on
> providing information about the technical work going on related to
pervasive surveillance:
> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/ISOC.doc
>
> We certainly plan on following closely what will happened at the HRC
> session, and commend Diplo/GIP's efforts in building capacity for
> diplomats in this regard. We will be working on analyzing the impact
> of the recent HRC resolutions as well as Human Rights discussions
> relating to IGF preparations.
>
> As we pursue our participation in the Human Rights debate, we will
> continue to reach out to our Members. The Human Rights agenda has now
> impacted several fora (IGF, WSIS, HRC, etc.); receiving and sharing
> insights within our community is critical.
>
> Best,
> Nicolas
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicolas Seidler
> Policy Advisor
> The Internet Society
> Geneva
> www.internetsociety.org
>
>
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 13:32, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Nick, it is a very good point.
>
>
> IG will be shifting more towards HRC for human rights, especially
> after the September session of HRC on online privacy. Human rights
> aspects will affect Internet business model, net neutrality,
> protection of users. you name it and you have it. One has to be aware
> that human rights community has specific 'culture' (framing issues,
> language, organizations). The same applies to the WTO and other
> players who will be increasing involved in the IG-related issues.
> Similar to the IG community, other professional communities tend to create
silos and turfs.
>
>
> ISOC has an important role to play in ensuring 'sync' between Internet
> and other 'issue communities'. You can also count on the GIP's help in
> this endeavor http://giplatform.org/
>
>
> As ever, Jovan
>
>
> Jovan Kurbalija, Phd
> Director, DiploFoundation
> WMO Building | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1211 Geneva - Switzerland Tel
> +41 (0) 22 9073632 | Mobile +41 (0) 797884226
> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija
>
>
> Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain
> my tardiness. Thank you for your patience!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2014, at 12:17 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Christian,
>
>
> All the questions you have asked are good ones. I think these are the
> questions the community as a whole should consider, looking the broad
> array of processes where policies that will impact the Internet are
> being worked on.
>
>
> People like me - and ISOC - can help by providing information on what
> is taking place - but some of these are well-known:
>
>
> HRC for human rights - vastly more useful to work on HR in this forum
> than to host a dozen or more sessions at the IGF (such as is the case
> this year), where the people making decisions on HR are not in the
audience.
> UNGA in NYC - where profoundly important decisions are being made
> about the next 10 years of WSIS and how it will fit into the broader
> development agenda being agreed upon vis a vis the MDGs.
> There are quite a few more.
>
>
> Since this is an ISOC list, they could do a really valuable service by
> cataloguing all of the relevant processes (the WGEC having done a lot
> of this already) and then convening members to understand them and
> which ones matter, which could lead to a broader dialogue about how to
> cover the many, many places which are presently very poorly covered,
> or not covered at all, by this community.
>
>
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 11:03, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Nick
>
> I see the point. But the implication is that current policy feeds into
> M-L is not representative.
>
> The question is if I do turn up (which means getting funding and
> release from other commitments) where to turn up, how to get M-L to
> actually include me in their process and who or what cause do I represent
convincingly.
>
> The world is full of these meta institutions designed for a different era.
> Which one's ? How many bodies turning up at the registration desk will
> get the point made?
>
>
> Christian
>
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Christian,
>
>
> As was famously said: History is made by those who show up. If you
> want to affect policy-making, you have to be present where the policy is
being made.
> It is as simple as that. Indirect engagement in multilateral
> policymaking fora = being absent.
>
>
> This community is almost entirely absent from more and more of the
> places where the decisions are being made, and not building the
> alliances in the places where decisions will start to be made in future.
>
>
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 10:13, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:
>
>
> Nick
>
> Also. Is it impossible to conceive that Human Rights diplomats might
> actually be digitally competent?
>
> There are direct stakeholders and their are indirect one's. Getting a
> fair representation of the balance of views and interests across the
> piece is the challenge. Much of that can hopefully be done by
> engaging indirectly via education, training, awareness building so the
> digital agenda is addressed competently.
>
>
>
> Christian
>
> Gary W Kenward wrote:
> ++1
>
> On 2014.06.29, at 12:41 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
wrote:
>
>
> If the Internet community wants to see more multistakeholderism at the
> HRC, then it would have to :
>
> a) Show up in sufficient numbers to be persuasive.
> B) contribute to its work and make the case for greater MS formats
>
> It is all very well to say "they aren't multistakeholder enough" about
> everything outside of one's favourite places but frankly that doesn't
> actually create any change or impact anything. All too often when
> someone like me comes along to say "hey, look at all that is going on
> here" what I see by reply is generally dismissive complaints about the
> process, like yours, below.
>
> Decisions are going to continue to get taken in these fora.
> Complaining about that isn't going to alter that fact.
>
> I'm sorry if you don't have funding to attend. I'm sorry if you don't
> like the process. It exists, and it produces incredibly valuable,
> pro-Internet results. Look around at the venues you have attended in the
last 12 months.
> How many of them, whether multistakeholder or not, have actually stood
> up in a binding form for the Internet, like the HRC has consistently?
> The WSIS Forum, IGF - these are all talk shops.
>
> Talk shops have real value, but if the only place you go is to talk
> shops, you're just talking, not doing.
>
> I'm sorry if this seems a bit blunt, but the Internet is facing
> greater dangers than it ever has, and the places where that danger is
> being faced are places where the traditional WSIS/ICANN/IGF "Internet
> Community" is almost entirely absent.
>
> On 29 Jun 2014, at 17:27, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
> You may believe those things, but that doesn't make them true.
>
>
>
> Well I believe that is true for everyone in every case.
> Thanks for reminding us.
>
> For all the positive value i see in the Human Rights Council work in
> the UN, and I do follow it from afar due to a lack of funding, one can
> hardly say that it is a multistakeholder effort. Not when non
> governmental speakers for the main sessions have to sit and wait in
> expectation of a timer going off when they may be allowed to apply for
> speaking slots of a few minutes at the end of meetings when the States
> have mostly already left the room.
>
> And yes, they have various side session at their Geneva meetings, but
> it is hardly a multistakeholder discussion at this point. Just as
> WSIS hinted at being multistakeholder without really achieving it.
>
> BTW are you saying you think that resolution was ready for adoption?
>
> avri
>
> On 29-Jun-14 16:11, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>
> Avri,
>
> You may believe those things, but that doesn't make them true.
>
> Some have, for quite a while, and more are coming in 2014.
>
> * See
> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Forum/Pages/2014ForumOnBusines
> sandHu
> manRights.aspx
> for the 2014 meeting in Geneva
> * See
> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/Members.aspx#Guaqueta
> for the Working Group established by the UNHCR.
> * See
> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/ResolutionsDecisions.asp
> x for various resolutions of UN bodies on the subject.
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but the Internet community in
> general has been in a very narrow silo for a lvery ong time. There's a
> lot going on vis a vis the Internet - and most of it has no connection
> to the IGF, ICANN meetings, WSIS, or CSTD. And, more significantly, it
> is happening in fora where there is acknowledged decision-making
> power, which isn't the case in the traditional Internet community's
> favourite venues with few exceptions.
>
> On 29 Jun 2014, at 16:52, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not believe the discussions have taken place yet. How can
> discussion take place with regimes who refuse to participate in a
> multistakeholder manner? How can we have a full discussions with
> actors who insist on isolating themselves away from multistakeholder
> discussions and who can't even utter the word multistakeholder except
> in condemnation? One just has to read the resolution to see how far it
> still is from a realization that the inter-governmental decision
> process can only act legitimately once all the stakeholders have had a
> full and open equal footing multistakeholder discussion and have come
> outcomes on the issues.
>
> There have been some starts to the discussion but nothing like that
> which is still needed. We have certainly not yet reached
> multistakeholder consensus on a recommendation for intergovernmental
> action.
>
> Until then, any action is premature and I thank the states that voted
> against, for making sure it does not happen at the wrong time and in
> the wrong way.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 29-Jun-14 14:42, Richard Hill wrote:
>
> I agree with Avri, except that, as indicated in the Access article
> that Nick pointed us to, the multi-stakeholder consultations have
> already taken place, so the time may indeed have come for negotiating
> a treaty (also called convention), which, as Avri points out, is an
> intergovernmental activity.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
> ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
> ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
>
>
> <image.png>
>
>
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND
> CONFIDENTIAL. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR
> REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
> ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga
> FBCS, CITP, MCMA
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> -------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga
> FBCS, CITP, MCMA
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> -------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
> ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
> ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
-------------- 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