[governance] [JNC - Forum] Report of the GCIG

[Michael Gurstein]

... "a knee jerk approach...

 

And recognizing Roberto's very wise comments...                    

 

I've now re-read the report, and reflected on my immediate and almost visceral reaction.

 

My first sense of the report was one of disappointment.  I'm not sure exactly what I might have been expecting but given the evident resources both financial and human that went into this I was left rather flat.  A lot of good and worthy things were said but they would have had rather more impact and value if they had been said 3 or 4 years ago when the JNC/folks constituting the JNC were making a very lonely and highly contentious fight to shift the perspective on Internet Governance from one celebrating a privatized, US centric neo-liberal status quo to one which recognized the Internet's emerging fundamental, global and public good character (and which moreover could have been readily discerned by anyone who cared to look with a dispassionate eye i.e. without ideological blinkers or some financially induced self-interest). Now many of these things have passed into a more or less received wisdom and while its always useful to have them repeated it doesn't have quite the impact that it might have otherwise had.

 

But of course, things such as this report/Commission function in bureaucratic time while everything on which it is commenting is functioning in Internet time (i.e. standard time x 6 (?)) or some such.  However, even on that basis and acknowledging the various good words in various areas I'm still disappointed.

 

Even long ago at the beginning of 2014 when the Commission was formally launched it was clear that the Internet was something more than "an ecosystem of technologies, protocols, hardware, software and content".  In fact it was visibly and at an incredible pace becoming the fundamental driver for global governance structuring, with the clear intent of the overwhelming forces of the Internet status quo, towards transforming global governance structures such as they are/were towards "multistakeholder" structures.  (I've written and documented this quite extensively on my blog.)  What this means is that a report/Commission with the (self?)importance of this one rather than dealing with Internet Governance needs to and should recognize that it is in fact dealing with the emerging structures and content of global governance and the multiple contending interests therein.

 

And it is on that basis that the report falls so regrettably short.  I note with interest and appreciation that my much maligned definition of desirable "multistakeholderism" as “decisions should be made as close to those impacted as possible” finds such strong resonance and echoing in the definition now embraced by the Commission.  But regrettably the Commission omitted the second part of my definition which was to see MSism as a contributory element to overall Internet (and global) democratic governance.

 

No one would deny the need to have techies involved in tech decisions for example, but how to ensure that global (Internet) governance remains "democratic" even in the face of the evident perception by many in the “Internet community” that Democracy is too much of hassle to worry about (or words to that effect from the US Ambassador at the UNESCO Connecting the Dots meeting where APC among others signed on to a report on Internet Governance which deliberately excluded any reference to democracy and democratic governance).

 

But that was then and this is now... And what the Report lacks is any clear idea (actually any idea at all) of how to get from here to there... How to implement any of the good and useful details of Internet governance that are introduced, how in the real world to move a "Social Compact" forward and overall how to ensure that the Internet that emerges, or rather the global governance system that emerges is not simply multistakeholderist but also democratic.  

 

And this absence at the core of the report leads directly to what I pointed to earlier i.e. the complete lack of any attempt to deal with the current issues of accelerating inequality, concentration of power in monopolized platforms, or the reality of state level surveillance and the risks it poses to democracy and democratic processes.  By failing to substantively address the how and what of Internet Governance mechanisms/the "Social Compact", by copping out in this, the central area that they are addressing, they do passively what all the other similar initiatives are doing actively which is to give a green light and effective moral support to those who are doing their best to maintain, promote and implant the neo-liberal status quo.  As the report itself says in somewhat similar words, doing nothing is actually doing something very significant and yes, by not giving any useful direction or critical perspective on global Internet governance this report and the attendant Commission is in fact doing something very significant which is to give tacit support to how the Internet is currently evolving and the allocation of rewards and power that that evolution is enabling.  

 

Surely after all of the Commissions, and conferences, and reports exhorting this and that one could expect that the great and good should at least identify how to do what they suggest needs to be done or if nothing else to indicate that it is an issue that needs urgently to be addressed.

 

(And apropos Robert’s comments… Yes, it is sometimes necessary/desirable to participate in order to curb the excesses but a continuous pattern of doing so indicates more the reality (and rewards) of cooptation and providing at little risk or broader benefit the desired veneer of unwarranted legitimization rather than having useful or effective influence.)

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: June 22, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Internet governance related discussions <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Report of the GCIG

 

Responding to Richard's message not because I am not acknowledging Parminder and Michael's critiques but because I am not sure I can say anything helpful in response to them.

 

Thank you Richard. I am please you found some value in the report. I think there is quite a bit.. even the notion of core internet infrastructure being a global public good.

 

Some of us on the Commission, including myself, worked very hard to to shape in it in a way that can have value for those who want to change and challenge current approaches.

 

Members of the Commission were very different, different politics, backgrounds, objectives. The report is a consensus document, but it does also reflect these differences and tries to honour them.

 

There are some recommendations which actually diverge quite dramatically from current 'multistakeholder' wisdom and there is also criticism of current approaches.

 

So thank you Richard for not having a knee jerk approach.

 

Anriette

 

On 22/06/2016 14:57, Richard Hill wrote:

> The Global Commission on Internet Governance has released its report, see:

> 

>    <http://ourinternet.org/report> http://ourinternet.org/report

> 

> Given that the chairman of the commission was Karl Bildt and that some 

> of the members are staunch proponents of the status quo, I was 

> expecting that the report would do little more that say that everything is fine.

> 

> But that is not the case. In many respects, the report is consistent 

> with the positions taken by the Just Net Coalition.

> 

> I reproduce below some portions that I found worth singling out.  

> There are no page numbers in the report, so I could not include page references.

> 

> Best,

> Richard

> 

> =======================

>  

> CORE ELEMENTS OF A SOCIAL COMPACT FOR A DIGITAL SOCIETY

> 

> There must be a mutual understanding between citizens and their state 

> that the state takes responsibility to keep its citizens safe and 

> secure under the law while, in turn, citizens agree to empower the 

> authorities to carry out that mission, under a clear, accessible legal 

> framework that includes sufficient safeguards and checks and balances 

> against abuses. Business must be assured that the state respects the 

> confidentiality of its data and they must, in turn, provide their 

> customers the assurance that their data is not misused. There is an 

> urgent need to achieve consensus on a social compact for the digital 

> age in all countries. Just how urgent is shown by current levels of 

> concern over allegations of intrusive state-sponsored activities 

> ranging from weakening of encryption to large-scale criminal activity 

> to digital surveillance to misuse of personal data, and even to damaging cyber attacks and disruption.

> 

> Governments should not create or require third parties to build back 

> doors or compromise encryption standards, as these efforts would 

> weaken the Internet and fundamentally undermine trust. Efforts by the 

> technical community to incorporate privacy-and-security-enhancing 

> solutions into all standards and protocols of the Internet should be encouraged.

> 

> The Commission urges member states of the United Nations to agree not 

> to use cyber technology to attack the core infrastructure of the Internet.

> 

> Governments seeking a peaceful and sustainable Internet should adopt 

> and respect norms that help to reduce the incentive for states to use 

> cyber weapons. Governments should agree on infrastructure assets and 

> services that must not be targeted by cyber attacks.

> 

> Businesses should purchase cyber insurance to cover the liability 

> costs of breaches of their systems. Cyber liability insurance vendors 

> can be persuasive in promoting best practices in the corporate sector. 

> Cyber premiums should be higher if best practices are not followed. 

> Insurers need to have better data to appropriately identify and price 

> cyber risk and to develop appropriate products. Government regulations 

> should require routine, transparent reporting of technological 

> problems to provide the data required for a transparent market-based cyber-insurance industry.

> 

> There is a need to reverse the erosion of trust in the Internet 

> brought about by indiscriminate and non-transparent private practices 

> such as the collection, integration and analysis of vast amounts of 

> private information about individuals, companies and organizations. 

> Private surveillance based on "big data" is often conducted under the guise of a free service. ...

> 

> Users should not be excluded from the use of software or services that 

> allow them to participate in the information age, and they should be 

> offered the option of purchasing a service without having to agree to 

> give the provider access to their personal information. International 

> rules are also required to ensure that the holders of large 

> repositories of data are transparent about how they collect, use and share user-generated data.

> 

> Interception of communications, collection, analysis and use of data 

> over the Internet by law enforcement and government intelligence 

> agencies should be for purposes that are openly specified in advance, 

> authorized by law (including international human rights law) and 

> consistent with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

> 

> ... governments should use competition as a tool to expand Internet 

> access facilities to the maximum extent possible, while investing to 

> ensure availability when market forces prove insufficient.

> 

> The disruption to traditional jobs and skill requirements can create 

> economic hardship and civil discontent. Rather than attempting to 

> preserve old jobs by stifling innovation, governments should help 

> workers adapt to the new economic reality via skills training and educational programs.

> 

> The Internet has indeed reached a crossroads. Choices need to be made 

> - and making no choice is itself a choice. It is all about who should 

> have what power to control the future of the Internet.

> 

> Our advice is based on the belief that only a normative approach can 

> address the myriad challenges facing Internet governance. We call on 

> governments, private corporations, civil society, the technical 

> community and individuals together to create a new social compact for the digital age.

> 

> There is a growing concern about the market power and data collection 

> capabilities and practices of the large Internet platform companies as 

> well as other private data intermediaries.

> 

> The failure to incorporate security as an essential design feature by 

> vendors and larger customers of the IoT raises concerns that its 

> explosive growth could result in the "weaponization of everything."

> 

> Legal thresholds for lawfully authorized access to communications data 

> must be redefined to ensure that the aggregated collection of metadata 

> - such as an individual's full browsing history - are treated with the 

> same respect for privacy as access to the actual content of a 

> communication, and should only be made under judicial authority. In 

> all cases, the principles of necessity and proportionality must be applied.

> 

> Governments should not compromise or require third parties to weaken 

> or compromise encryption standards, for example, through hidden "backdoors"

> into the technology as such efforts would weaken the overall security 

> of digital data flows and transactions.

> 

> Individual users of paid or so-called "free services" provided on the 

> Internet should know about and have some choice over the full range of 

> ways in which their data will be deployed for commercial purposes. 

> They should not be excluded from the use of software or services 

> customary for participation in the information age, and should be 

> offered the option of purchasing the service without having to agree 

> to give the provider access to their personal information. Terms of 

> use agreements should be written in a clear and accessible manner and 

> should not be subject to change without the user's consent. Businesses 

> should demonstrate accountability and provide redress in the case of a security breach or a breach of contract.

> 

> To assure the public that their data is being appropriately protected, 

> states that do not already have comprehensive personal data protection 

> legislation and a privacy enforcement authority with legal enforcement 

> powers should take steps to create such regimes.

> 

> Governments should initiate efforts to develop international consensus 

> on norms about how to deal with cases where the goal of protecting 

> data comes into conflict with the requirements of law enforcement or 

> security agencies to investigate terrorist activity or attacks in an 

> emergency situation. At a minimum, any solutions should be derived 

> through a multi-stakeholder process, broadly agreed, and must be 

> subject to legal oversight, governed by principles of necessity, 

> proportionality and avoidance of unintended consequences.

> 

> Businesses should purchase cyber insurance to cover the liability 

> costs of successful breaches of their systems.

> 

> The market for cyber insurance is immature in comparison to the 

> seriousness of the threats, and the capital available to the industry 

> is currently inadequate to underwrite the full risk. Pricing the risk 

> is difficult in the absence of reliable time series data, making it 

> difficult for insurers to put a reliable figure on the likely losses from breaches.

> 

> More research is urgently needed to support greater accuracy when 

> pricing risk.

> 

> To assist the public to understand and practice the essentials of 

> cyber hygiene, governments should undertake significant campaigns to 

> raise awareness and develop the needed skills. Cyber-security 

> awareness programs should start early, for example, by incorporating 

> cyber hygiene into primary and secondary education curriculums.

> 

> Consistent with the recognition that parts of the Internet constitute 

> a global public good, the commission urges member states of the United 

> Nations to agree not to use cyber weapons against core infrastructure 

> of the Internet.

> 

> The disruptions resulting from the rapid spread of the sharing economy 

> are already being felt.

> 

> All levels of government (national, subnational, local), industry, 

> civil society and the technical community, need to be engaged on the 

> new regulatory challenges posed by the sharing economy.

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Forum mailing list

>  <mailto:Forum at justnetcoalition.org> Forum at justnetcoalition.org

>  <http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum

> 

 

--

-----------------------------------------

Anriette Esterhuysen

Executive Director

Association for Progressive Communications  <mailto:anriette at apc.org> anriette at apc.org  <http://www.apc.org> www.apc.org

IM: ae_apc

_______________________________________________

Forum mailing list

 <mailto:Forum at justnetcoalition.org> Forum at justnetcoalition.org

 <http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20160623/f96a27c2/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