From governance at lists.riseup.net  Tue Apr  3 07:53:23 2018
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:53:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fw: [bestbits] [CSCG] Letter to the IGF
 Secretariat re: MAG 2018 selection process
In-Reply-To: <331993246.1165790.1522756181936@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAK78muSDYEj4VG_uN28tsZ3Q6sSenMVuOwVioM4P_btq0vGrnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <331993246.1165790.1522756181936@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWpuhpVw+SPkc0U3qi=zD2opLoeK9R3O5JQN1HnF+QTTzw@mail.gmail.com>

Colleagues,

Wanted to forward this message from our colleague Sheetal with regards to a
letter the CSCG (IGC is a member, represented by Bruna and myself) sent to
the IGF Secretariat about the recently appointed MAG members.

Regards,
Arsene

Begin forwarded message:


On Tuesday, April 3, 2018, 1:46 PM, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
wrote:

Dear all,

Following the announcement of the MAG 2018 (see link below), the CSCG has
sent a letter to the IGF Secretariat.

The letter expresses concern about the transparency and accountability of
the selection process, and calls for improvements, in line with the CSTD
Working Group on Improvements to the IGF recommendations.

If there is a response from the Secretariat I will share it once it's
received. In the meantime, don't hesitate to get in touch should you have
any questions.

Announcement of the MAG: https://www.intgovforum.org/
multilingual/content/mag-2018-members
CSCG letter in response: http://internetgov-cs.org/2018-03-31

Best
Sheetal.
-- 


*Sheetal Kumar*
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
<https://maps.google.com/?q=68-80+Hanbury+Street,+London,+E1+5JL&entry=gmail&source=g>
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 <+44%2020%203%20818%203258> 0337| M: +44
(0)7739569514 <+44%207739569514>  |
PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53  | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 457D
AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 |

____________________________________________________________
<http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180403/e69c2a07/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Apr 12 14:02:36 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:02:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Multi-Sided Trust for Multi-Sided
 Platforms @ISOCUKEngland
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3ANKqQHf8i7xxv=iBGi6wxCtunVhzcQQCKUR7-KkYoTQ@mail.gmail.com>

A possibly transcendental view of the current furor from the UK. If joining
via the zoom please remember to mute your mic. This starts at 1:30pm NYC
time.

​​


[image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/multisided/>
Today, *Thursday 12 April 2018*, the *Internet Society’s UK England Chapter
<http://isoc-e.org/>* and the *Horizon Digital Economy Research Program at
Nottingham University <https://www.horizon.ac.uk/>* will host a panel
*Multi-Sided
Trust for Multi-Sided Platforms <http://isoc-e.org/multi-sided_trust/>* at
the British Computer Society in London UK. This discussion brings together
representatives from different sectors to discuss the topic of trust on the
Internet. In particular the panel will focus on consumer to business trust;
how users trust online services that are offered to them. Such services
include, but are not limited to, online shopping, social media, online
banking and search engines. Speakers: *Catherine Miller* – Director of
Policy at Doteveryone, who have recently published a ‘*Digital Attitudes
Report <http://attitudes.doteveryone.org.uk/>*‘; *Geoff Revill* – Founder &
Managing Director of Krowdthink Ltd, an SME/platform provider; *Kate Green* –
ISOC 25 Under 25 Awardee doing research on user experience and trust in
online health communities; *Robin Wilton* – Technical Outreach for Identity
and Privacy at the Internet Society. Moderator: *Ansgar Koene* – Senior
Research Fellow at Horizon Digital Economy Research, University of
Nottingham, researching algorithm bias. The event will be webcast live on
the *Internet Society Livestream Channel
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/multisided/>*, and remote
participation will be available via *Zoom <https://zoom.us/j/546718244>*.






*What: Multi-Sided Trust for Multi-Sided Platforms
<http://isoc-e.org/multi-sided_trust/>Where: British Computer Society,
London UKWhen: Thursday 12 April 2018 6:30 PM BST (17:30
UTC)Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/multisided/
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/multisided/> (no
captions)Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/546718244
<https://zoom.us/j/546718244>Twitter: #multisided +
@isocukengland http://bit.ly/multisided <http://bit.ly/multisided>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10074#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10074#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10074 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10074>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180412/a81f6efa/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Sat Apr 14 01:28:51 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:28:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Kenya Youth Convening on Internet
 Governance conference
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3dcpu5pmb-aJPVka=D3AzyYWJT4M22s-FirY-1HXDMYA@mail.gmail.com>

 Not for the first time Kenya leads the way! If joining via Zoom please
remember to mute your mic.   If viewing later, the Livestream is your best
bet.,

​​

[image: Livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/kycig/>Today* Saturday
April 14 2018 Digital Grassroots <https://www.digitalgrassroots.org/>* and
the* Internet Society Kenya Chapter <https://www.isoc.or.ke/>* host the *Kenya
Youth Convening on Internet Governance
<https://www.digitalgrassroots.org/p/apply-kenya-youth-convening-on-internet.html>*
conference
in Nairobi, Kenya. Kenya Youth Convening on Internet Governance is a
national, annual forum where youth engage in internet governance topics and
join discussions with experts and their peers. 2018 Theme: *The Youth in
Shaping Kenya’s Digital Future*. The event will be webcast live on the
*Internet
Society Livestream Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/kycig/>*
and *Facebook* <https://www.facebook.com/digitalgrassroots/>. Remote
participation is available via *Zoom
<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/d58170acd3aba708cde7dc3c8da9331e>*.
Kenya is UTC+3, 7 hours ahead of NYC.








*What: Kenya Youth Convening on Internet Governance
<https://www.digitalgrassroots.org/p/apply-kenya-youth-convening-on-internet.html>Where:
Nairobi KenyaWhen: Saturday April 14 2018 9am-5pm EAT (06:00-14:00
UTC)Agenda: http://isoc-ny.org/misc/KYCIG2018.pdf
<http://isoc-ny.org/misc/KYCIG2018.pdf>Zoom:
https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/d58170acd3aba708cde7dc3c8da9331e
<https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/d58170acd3aba708cde7dc3c8da9331e>
(Please
mute mic)Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/kycig/
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/kycig/> (No captions)Facebook
Simulcasts: ISOC Africa <https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica/> | IGF Kenya
<https://www.facebook.com/KenyaIGF/> | Digital Grassroots
<https://www.facebook.com/digitalgrassroots/> | ISOC Kenya
<https://www.facebook.com/ISOCKenyaChapter/>Twitter: #KYCIG
<https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%23KYCIG&src=typd>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10088#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10088#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10088 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10088>*







-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180414/58624545/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Apr 16 14:58:47 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:58:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Force_of_Nature_=E2=80=93?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Celebrating_20_Years_of_the_Laws_of_Cyberspace?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk35ezTJKSLbneTOBWarLELtuKD3JkjNSaNpQtyVdxGKoA@mail.gmail.com>

 ​The 1998 ​paper/speech
<https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/laws_cyberspace.pdf> by Larry
Lessig that this event celebrates was remarkably prescient. He foresaw many
of the problems that are only just now becoming pain points, and speculated
as to solutions. Here is its concluding paragraph:


> *Cyberspace is regulated ¾ by laws, but not just by law. The code of
> cyberspace is one of these laws. We must come to see how this code is an
> emerging sovereign — omnipresent, omnipotent, gentle, efficient, growing —
> and that we must develop against this sovereign the limits that we have
> developed against real space sovereigns. Sovereigns will always say — real
> space as well as cyberspace — that limits, and inefficiencies — bugs — are
> not necessary. But things move too quickly for such confidence. My fear is
> not just that against this sovereign, we have not yet developed a language
> of liberty. Nor that we haven’t the time to develop such language. But my
> fear is that we sustain the will — the will of free societies for the past
> two centuries, to architect constitutions to protect freedom, efficiencies
> notwithstanding.*


This will be a very interesting session.
​ 4pm NYC time.​


​​


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/lessig>Today *Monday
April 16 2018* at *4pm* ET (20:200 UTC), the* Berkman Klein Center for
Internet & Society <https://cyber.harvard.edu/>*presents *Force of Nature –
Celebrating 20 Years of the Laws of Cyberspace
<https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/2018/04/Lessig>* at Harvard Law School.
The event recognizes the 20th anniversary of the paper *The Laws of
Cyberspace <https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/laws_cyberspace.pdf>*
(Taipei
March ’98) by *Professor Lawrence Lessig*. Speakers: Professor Lessig, the
Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, along
with *Professor Ruth L. Okediji*, the Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law
at Harvard Law School and Co-Director of the Berkman Klein Center, and* Dr.
Laura DeNardis*, Professor in the School of Communication at American
University, with moderator, *Professor Jonathan Zittrain*, the George Bemis
Professor of International Law at Harvard Law School and the Harvard
Kennedy School of Government, Professor of Computer Science at the Harvard
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Director of the Harvard Law
School Library, and Faculty Director of the Berkman Center for Internet &
Society. The event will be *webcast live
<https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/2018/04/Lessig>*, and simulcast on
the *Internet
Society Livestream Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/lessig/>*.
(No captions).


*View on Livestream: Internet Society Livestream Channel
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/lessig/>Twitter: @BKCHarvard
<https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%40BKCHarvard&src=typd>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10096#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10096#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10094 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10094>*







-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180416/6a748a24/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Apr 17 18:33:03 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:33:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=40IQ2US_Live_Debate_tonight=3A_=E2=80=9CP?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?reserve_Net_Neutrality=3A_All_Data_Is_Created_Equal=E2=80=9D?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0a918EWGdRYdxeeQdy_P+aLORzS=1E-YR_TGcr8ThaEA@mail.gmail.com>

 Be sure to put in your initial vote before the event starts. It's the
swing that counts.

​​

[image: livestream]
<https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/preserve-net-neutrality-all-data-created-equal>
Tonight, *Tuesday April 17 2018* at *7:30pm EDT* (23:30 UTC)*
IntelligenceSquaredUS
<https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/>* will host a debate *“Preserve Net
Neutrality: All Data Is Created Equal”
<https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/preserve-net-neutrality-all-data-created-equal>*
 in Chicago IL. Arguing for the motion will be *Mitchell Baker*,
Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation & Mozilla Corporation and *Tom Wheeler*,
Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School and Former Chairman, FCC. Arguing against
will be *Nick Gillespie*, Editor at Large, Reason and *Michael Katz*,
Professor, Berkeley & Former Chief Economist, FCC. It will be *streamed
online
<https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/preserve-net-neutrality-all-data-created-equal>*.
The result will be decided by a comparison of votes before and after the
arguments.

*Twitter: @IQ2US + #NetNeutrality
<https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%40IQ2US%20%2B%20%23NetNeutrality&src=typd>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10108#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10108#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10108 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10108>*







-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180417/2c6ae27b/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Fri Apr 20 15:34:21 2018
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:34:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2018 Program Shaping Proposal
In-Reply-To: <E9D7789C-BCCC-43E4-B9B1-31BBD65E2BB4@Internet-Matters.org>
References: <E9D7789C-BCCC-43E4-B9B1-31BBD65E2BB4@Internet-Matters.org>
Message-ID: <0fe8063a-2eb0-0c17-4518-b29f56bc9452@Malcolm.id.au>

Hello all,

I am sharing a DRAFT Call for Workshops that is under consideration by
the IGF MAG, that we are circulating for broader review because it
contains some differences from previous years, with the objective of
making the meeting more cohesive and focused.

This doesn't include major new session formats (I'm no longer pushing
for that this year; there simply isn't enough time), but does include
some procedural changes and a requirement that proposals indicate what
policy question they will be addressing. In my view, this is a positive
incremental step towards the improvement of the IGF, that should be
supported.

If you have feedback on the draft, please share it with me and I will
collect it and share with the MAG.

PS. Since I know I'll get questions about this, no, there still hasn't
been a decision made about the venue of the 2018 IGF meeting, though it
has been narrowed down to two possibilities.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[IGFmaglist] IGF 2018 Program Shaping Proposal
Date: 	Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:23:11 -0400
From: 	Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>
To: 	MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>



Dear MAG members,

following the clear requests for a more cohesive and focused IGF Annual meeting, the Ad-hoc group and the IGF secretariat have been working to advance our program shaping effort for IGF 2018.

Given the need to have the Call for Workshops launched in just over 1 week (April 30th, 2018) it was necessary that we draft a fuller process proposal for review by the entire MAG.   It is imperative that the Call for Workshops reflect the MAG’s intentions with respect to shaping the program as there should be no surprises to the community during the MAG’s Workshop evaluation process.

Please share with your communities in order for us to have a broad review.  In particular we need to work with the Intercessional activities and the NRIs to get their thoughts and ensure support for any ultimate changes.   

This proposal is slated for review and approval on the MAG Meeting scheduled for April 25th, 2018.

Best regards,

Lynn


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180420/7236992c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF Program Shaping 2018.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 194585 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180420/7236992c/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180420/7236992c/attachment.sig>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Apr 25 05:18:55 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:18:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST WED/THU: 2018 Justice for Freedom of
 Expression Conference + Ranking Digital Rights 2018 Corporate
 Accountability Index launch
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk136Q+8dNAJ50Yr3-xwQgzTyJU-iO=i7AvD8xiGchNDsQ@mail.gmail.com>

 It's possible, with the current rush to moderate social media platforms
and the Internet in general, that digital freedom of expression has never
been more under threat. Don't miss this  landmark event, which features top
thinkers from all corners. And tune in early for Rebecca MacKinnon!

​​

[image: livestream][image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rdr2018>On *Wednesday-Thursday
April 25-26 2018* the *Columbia GlobalFreedom of Expression* and Information
<https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/>presents the *2018 Justice
for Freedom of Expression Conference
<https://www.justiceforexpression.com/>*. which seeks to highlight the
changing environment for free speech and press freedom through a focus on
jurisprudence, laws and policies from around the world. This biennial event
is the only forum focusing on global jurisprudence related to freedom of
expression. As an added feature the conference will open with the launch of
the *Ranking Digital Rights 2018 Corporate Accountability Index
<https://rankingdigitalrights.org/>*, ranking 22 of the world’s most
powerful telecommunications, internet, and mobile companies on their
commitments and disclosed policies affecting users’ freedom of expression
and privacy. Both events will be webcast live on the *Internet Society
Livestream Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/>*.








*What: 2018 Justice for Freedom of Expression Conference + Ranking Digital
Rights 2018 Corporate Accountability Index launch
<https://www.justiceforexpression.com/>Where: Italian Academy NYCWhen:
Wednesday-Thursday April 25-26 2018
(UTC-4)Agenda: https://www.justiceforexpression.com/
<https://www.justiceforexpression.com/>Webcasts:Ranking Digital Rights
– https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rdr2018
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rdr2018> (9:30am-11am
Weds)Expression2018 Conference
– https://livestream.com/internetsociety/expression2018
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/expression2018>Twitter: #rankingrights
<http://bit.ly/rankingrights2018> | #expression2018
<http://bit.ly/expression2018>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10163#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10163#comments>


*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10163








-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180425/1bd68597/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Apr 27 08:15:18 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:15:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST FRI/SAT: Theorizing the Web #TtW18
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0MnBoCBU6Nd-3cLnrA5cq7Vr4BaOD5PBTcNpdN6MbMqw@mail.gmail.com>

This is our 3rd year streaming this unique event, which brings radical
sociologic analysis to Internet affairs.


​​

[image: livestream] <http://bit.ly/ttw18live>On *Friday/Saturday April
27-28 2018* the 8th annual *Theorizing the Web*
<http://theorizingtheweb.org/ttw18/> conference will take place at the
Museum of the Moving Image in NYC. Theorizing the Web is an inter- and
non-disciplinary annual conference that brings together scholars,
journalists, artists, activists, and technology practitioners to think
conceptually and critically about the interrelationships between the Web
and society. We deeply value public engagement, and consider insights from
academics, non-academics, and non-“tech theorists” alike to be equally
valuable. Both days of programming will feature invited speakers as well as
presentations from competitively selected open-submission system. Selected
papers advance clear theoretical arguments; represent a diverse range of
perspectives; embrace accessibility by demystifying jargon rather than
using it as a crutch; and, importantly, appeal to concerns of power, social
(in)equality, and justice. The event comprises three afternoon tracks, plus
plenary evening keynote sessions. The entire event will we *webcast live
<http://bit.ly/ttw18live>*.







*What: Theorizing the Web 2018 <http://theorizingtheweb.org/ttw18/>Where:
Museum of the Moving Image, NYCWhen: Friday/Saturday April 27-28 2018
Noon-9pm EDT | 16:00-01:00
UTCSchedule: http://theorizingtheweb.org/ny/ttw18/program/
<http://theorizingtheweb.org/ny/ttw18/program/>Webcast: http://bit.ly/ttw18live
<http://bit.ly/ttw18live>Twitter: #TtW18 http://bit.ly/ttw18tweets
<http://bit.ly/ttw18tweets>Facebook:
#TtW18 https://facebook.com/hashtag/TtW18
<https://facebook.com/hashtag/TtW18>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10172#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10172#comments>


*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10172








-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180427/b45bc489/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 03:20:34 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:50:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well
 and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>

I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are
substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of forwarding
this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :) - issue of
pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in the IG space over
the last one decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led western
interests and having considerably forgotten to promote global public
interest, and the interests of the weakest sections, groups and
countries. And, as often happens in the mid to long term, such
partisanship is no longer serving even western interests that well.

My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing and
promoting an effort at a collective rethink and re-orientation among the
IG civil society about its politics and role, as we enter a digital
society where Internet or digital governance is one of the most
important political subjects.

parminder

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly
under-way
Date: 	Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: 	Internet governance related discussions
<forum at justnetcoalition.org>
To: 	Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>




As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by, or
determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in the digital
cold war there is going to be a similar schism in terms of whose digital
security equipment you finally trust and buy, as everything gets
underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the  "digital security"
based polarisation will be data flows polarisation -- EU is determining
adequacy tests about where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is
determining adequacy test about which countries can access data residing
in the US for regulatory and law enforcement purposes.....

We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last decade or
so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for Internet and
digital governance... What is significant is the role that civil society
groups played in such rejection, and thus must share the blame of the
oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries that are not
the US and China at the abject mercy of these digital super powers ...
parminder



internetgovernance.org
<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>



  A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War

by Jinhe Liu
9-12 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the expression “one
sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This forbidding term refers to the
United States’ seven-year export ban on China’s second-largest telecom
supplier, ZTE
<https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a state
of shock.
<http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike” means
that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before the victim
has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency in
the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both a feeling
of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere dispersing though the Chinese
society.

In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech company
Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company MoneyGram; also in
the name of national security it forced AT&T to end cooperation with
Huawei. At the same time, the Trump administration ordered high tariffs
on imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds of tariffs
on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential memorandum and
announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which was widely
regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes between China
and the United States. In April 16th, the United States launched its
“throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some analysts are still
discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will happen, on the other side of
the Pacific the war fire has already begun to burn, as a sense of
economic conflict develops between the two largest economies in the
world. The /New York Times Chinese version/characterized the Sino-US
dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold War Era
<https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”

After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all of China
is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large number of articles
about it emerge in the mainstream media and social media platforms every
day. The strength of the reaction have probably exceeded the
expectations of American society, and even China’s own. On the whole,
Chinese society has discovered that its high-tech industry is weak and
unable to resist the US punch, especially because of its dependence on
US semiconductors. It has been pointed out that none of the 20 top
semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland China (see the table
below, which shows only the top 10). Civil society, academia, industry,
and even the government are contemplating the fragility of China’s
industrial development and trying to provide effective solutions. The
fact that ZTE violated American law has not been evaded in China. But
China fears  that just as a few days ago America launched a precise
strike against Syria, the United States is now launching an accurate and
fatal strike to Chinese national enterprises.


After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid  892
million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a settlement
agreement with the US government. Because this strong penalty against
ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese
people do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s
violation of the sanctions. According to the /Wall Street Journal/, the
US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is considering actions against the
business of Alibaba Cloud
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>in
the US. A US congressional report
<https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of
facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the US
Justice Department has launched an investigation
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>into
whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions make the
Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a bigger war.

Americans may not realize that these actions can be counterproductive.
They provoke nationalistic sentiment in Chinese society. In history,
whenever China has encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment
from outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs of
this familiar pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s central
news agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra tariff on
China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such as “the
Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not having
forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally used for the
announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE chairman
said that “we have the support of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we
have the ability and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after
Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old, rushed to
the United States to plead but without any fruit, which aroused huge
empathy by a picture
<https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE further
issued a statement
<http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for China’s
Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying that China is
“ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and
interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even began to
discuss whether the country should take corresponding measures on Apple,
widely quoting an article in Forbes
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>which
suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause massive
layoffs and crash in its stock price.

The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in China
to push for abandoning American products and developing their own
high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on April
21stthat “core technology is the pillar of the country” at the national
network security and information conference. And the Premier Li Keqiang
also spoke at the Executive meeting of the State Council to promote a
national innovation system aiming at science and technology development.
In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses of the
US sanctions, but also about inadequate self-protection, and, what is
more, about the future of international trade.

In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United States
are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an abandonment of
globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War, the world
entered a golden age of “neoliberal” globalization. International trade
promoted the growth of the world economy. According to the statistics of
the World Bank
<https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5 times
that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and in the 1990s
trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between China
and the United States have brought great benefits to both sides. The
low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a continuous supply
for the high consumption society of the United States. The huge demand
and advanced industrial technology of the United States have brought a
strong pull to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic
globalization was established by the United States, it is now the United
States who destroys it. Today’s trading system is so closely intertwined
that it is not all beneficial for the US to undermine the order it
built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S. suppliers fell on the news of the
ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1 million
jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.

The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy by a
trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that the global
free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April
10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of intellectual
property to integrate China deeper into the world trade system. But the
Trump administration seems to ignore this deliberately. As mentioned
above, Chinese society is worried mainly about the prospect of its
national development in the context of the times. Therefore, if more
trade wars happen, it is not only likely to lead to China’s aggressive
self-protection measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching
impact on how Chinese understand international rules. Solving the
impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires stakeholders to
sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well backfire.

If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of Internet
governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to be splitting up.
A one-world Internet should be interconnected across the borders of
states, but now territorial governments are trying to strengthen their
control by aligning the Internet with national jurisdictions. China has
selectively rejected the products of some American Internet giants, and
now, the United States has also begun to block China’s products. The
United States is becoming Chinese
<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes it from
its own territory in the name of national security or the protection of
its own industries. Some commentaries assert that the actions by the
United States against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep the US the
leading position in the 5G technology. But the establishment of walls to
exclude competition deviates from liberalism. The United States is a
strong advocate of the freedom of the Internet. It developed the
multi-stakeholder model, advocated bottom-up technical autonomy and open
industrial competition; it has resisted giving governments too much
control of the Internet. But now, on the contrary, the government of the
world’s most powerful Internet country is holding high the banner of
national security to expel market actors who place it at a competitive
disadvantage.

When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is badly
damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States Secretary of the
Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to negotiate. So the rule of
free trade and Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/d365a1b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum at justnetcoalition.org
http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 03:35:16 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:05:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is
 well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>

And it is not old history at all....

Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI 
https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical

But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD means not
a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but an OECD led
dialogue...  (which IG civil society has customarily cheered and
participated in, while condemning any possible UN process)

One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global dialogues, rules
and agreements, just as an example, Wired carries one such all today
"Data protection standards need to be global
<https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global>"
... There are others on AI, and so on...

But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that the UN WG
on Enhanced Cooperation (on International Internet-related polices)
closed without a report because not only the western countries and the
big business but also the Internet community and much of IG civil
society could not agree there really were Internet/ digital governance
issues that needed global addressing (other than perhaps as they were
already being addressed by the OECD, World Economic Forum and the such)....

And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP cheering the
failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not another word on the
subject by anyone...

Is there any global civil society in any other area which is so bereft
of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals, much less of
accountability and progressive notions like working for the weakest,
social justice, economic rights, and so on.... Could we yet reassemble
and take up our responsibilities...

parminder


On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are
> substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of forwarding
> this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :) - issue of
> pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in the IG space
> over the last one decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led
> western interests and having considerably forgotten to promote global
> public interest, and the interests of the weakest sections, groups and
> countries. And, as often happens in the mid to long term, such
> partisanship is no longer serving even western interests that well.
>
> My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing and
> promoting an effort at a collective rethink and re-orientation among
> the IG civil society about its politics and role, as we enter a
> digital society where Internet or digital governance is one of the
> most important political subjects.
>
> parminder
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly
> under-way
> Date: 	Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
> From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Reply-To: 	Internet governance related discussions
> <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> To: 	Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>
>
>
> As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by, or
> determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in the
> digital cold war there is going to be a similar schism in terms of
> whose digital security equipment you finally trust and buy, as
> everything gets underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the 
> "digital security" based polarisation will be data flows polarisation
> -- EU is determining adequacy tests about where its data can flow to,
> the new US CLOUD Act is determining adequacy test about which
> countries can access data residing in the US for regulatory and law
> enforcement purposes.....
>
> We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last decade
> or so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for Internet and
> digital governance... What is significant is the role that civil
> society groups played in such rejection, and thus must share the blame
> of the oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries that
> are not the US and China at the abject mercy of these digital super
> powers ... parminder
>
>
>
> internetgovernance.org
> <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>
>
>
>
>   A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
>
> by Jinhe Liu
> 9-12 minutes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the expression
> “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This forbidding term refers
> to the United States’ seven-year export ban on China’s second-largest
> telecom supplier, ZTE
> <https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
> which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a state
> of shock.
> <http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
> In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike” means
> that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before the victim
> has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency
> in the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both a
> feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere dispersing though
> the Chinese society.
>
> In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech company
> Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company MoneyGram; also
> in the name of national security it forced AT&T to end cooperation
> with Huawei. At the same time, the Trump administration ordered high
> tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds
> of tariffs on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential
> memorandum and announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which
> was widely regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes
> between China and the United States. In April 16th, the United States
> launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some analysts are
> still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will happen, on the other
> side of the Pacific the war fire has already begun to burn, as a sense
> of economic conflict develops between the two largest economies in the
> world. The /New York Times Chinese version/characterized the Sino-US
> dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold War Era
> <https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”
>
> After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all of
> China is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large number of
> articles about it emerge in the mainstream media and social media
> platforms every day. The strength of the reaction have probably
> exceeded the expectations of American society, and even China’s own.
> On the whole, Chinese society has discovered that its high-tech
> industry is weak and unable to resist the US punch, especially because
> of its dependence on US semiconductors. It has been pointed out that
> none of the 20 top semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland
> China (see the table below, which shows only the top 10). Civil
> society, academia, industry, and even the government are contemplating
> the fragility of China’s industrial development and trying to provide
> effective solutions. The fact that ZTE violated American law has not
> been evaded in China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago
> America launched a precise strike against Syria, the United States is
> now launching an accurate and fatal strike to Chinese national
> enterprises.
>
>
> After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid  892
> million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a settlement
> agreement with the US government. Because this strong penalty against
> ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese
> people do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s
> violation of the sanctions. According to the /Wall Street Journal/,
> the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is considering actions
> against the business of Alibaba Cloud
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>in
> the US. A US congressional report
> <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
> accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of
> facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the US
> Justice Department has launched an investigation
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>into
> whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions make
> the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a bigger war.
>
> Americans may not realize that these actions can be counterproductive.
> They provoke nationalistic sentiment in Chinese society. In history,
> whenever China has encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment
> from outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs
> of this familiar pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s
> central news agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra
> tariff on China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such
> as “the Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not
> having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally used
> for the announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE
> chairman said that “we have the support of 1.3 billion (Chinese)
> people, and we have the ability and determination to tide over this
> difficulty,” after Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76
> years old, rushed to the United States to plead but without any fruit,
> which aroused huge empathy by a picture
> <https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
> widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE further
> issued a statement
> <http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
> the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for China’s
> Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying that China
> is “ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate
> rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even
> began to discuss whether the country should take corresponding
> measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in Forbes
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>which
> suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause massive
> layoffs and crash in its stock price.
>
> The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in
> China to push for abandoning American products and developing their
> own high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on
> April 21stthat “core technology is the pillar of the country” at the
> national network security and information conference. And the Premier
> Li Keqiang also spoke at the Executive meeting of the State Council to
> promote a national innovation system aiming at science and technology
> development. In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the
> economic losses of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate
> self-protection, and, what is more, about the future of international
> trade.
>
> In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United
> States are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an abandonment
> of globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War, the world
> entered a golden age of “neoliberal” globalization. International
> trade promoted the growth of the world economy. According to the
> statistics of the World Bank
> <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
> whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5 times
> that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and in the
> 1990s trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges
> between China and the United States have brought great benefits to
> both sides. The low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a
> continuous supply for the high consumption society of the United
> States. The huge demand and advanced industrial technology of the
> United States have brought a strong pull to the Chinese economy. While
> the order of economic globalization was established by the United
> States, it is now the United States who destroys it. Today’s trading
> system is so closely intertwined that it is not all beneficial for the
> US to undermine the order it built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S.
> suppliers fell on the news of the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
> <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
> points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1
> million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.
>
> The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy by a
> trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that the global
> free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April
> 10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
> the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of intellectual
> property to integrate China deeper into the world trade system. But
> the Trump administration seems to ignore this deliberately. As
> mentioned above, Chinese society is worried mainly about the prospect
> of its national development in the context of the times. Therefore, if
> more trade wars happen, it is not only likely to lead to China’s
> aggressive self-protection measures but also is likely to have a
> far-reaching impact on how Chinese understand international rules.
> Solving the impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires
> stakeholders to sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well
> backfire.
>
> If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of
> Internet governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to be
> splitting up. A one-world Internet should be interconnected across the
> borders of states, but now territorial governments are trying to
> strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with national
> jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the products of some
> American Internet giants, and now, the United States has also begun to
> block China’s products. The United States is becoming Chinese
> <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
> The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes it
> from its own territory in the name of national security or the
> protection of its own industries. Some commentaries assert that the
> actions by the United States against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep
> the US the leading position in the 5G technology. But the
> establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates from
> liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of the freedom of
> the Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder model, advocated
> bottom-up technical autonomy and open industrial competition; it has
> resisted giving governments too much control of the Internet. But now,
> on the contrary, the government of the world’s most powerful Internet
> country is holding high the banner of national security to expel
> market actors who place it at a competitive disadvantage.
>
> When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is
> badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States Secretary of
> the Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to negotiate. So the rule
> of free trade and Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/6e60aed3/attachment.htm>

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 30 03:46:06 2018
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:46:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is
 well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
 <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>




	
		
		
	
		So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese POV (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?

		
		

		
	




On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:











  
    
  
  
    

And it is not old history at all.... 

      
    

Just now I see this call by OECD for a
        global dialogue on AI 
https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical
    

But reading on one realises that with a
        global dialogue, OECD means not a UN based one, where are
        countries are equal, but an OECD led dialogue...  (which IG
        civil society has customarily cheered and participated in, while
        condemning any possible UN process)

      
    

One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days
        for global dialogues, rules and agreements, just as an example,
        Wired carries one such all today "Data
          protection standards need to be global" ... There are
        others on AI, and so on...

      
    

But wait a minute, was it not just
      this January of 2018, that the UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on
      International Internet-related polices) closed without a report
      because not only the western countries and the big business but
      also the Internet community and much of IG civil society could not
      agree there really were Internet/ digital governance issues that
      needed global addressing (other than perhaps as they were already
      being addressed by the OECD, World Economic Forum and the
      such)....
    

And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP
      cheering the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not
      another word on the subject by anyone...
    

Is there any global civil society in any other area which is so
      bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals, much less
      of accountability and progressive notions like working for the
      weakest, social justice, economic rights, and so on.... Could we
      yet reassemble and take up our responsibilities... 

    
    

parminder 

    
    

    On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM,
      parminder wrote:

    
    
      
      

I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely
        are substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of
        forwarding this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :)
        - issue of pointing to the culpability of civil society actors
        in the IG space over the last one decade or so in being partisan
        to narrow US led western interests and having considerably
        forgotten to promote global public interest, and the interests
        of the weakest sections, groups and countries. And, as often
        happens in the mid to long term, such partisanship is no longer
        serving even western interests that well. 

      
      My posting and engagement on
        this issue are aimed at proposing and promoting an effort at a
        collective rethink and re-orientation among the IG civil society
        about its politics and role, as we enter a digital society where
        Internet or digital governance is one of the most important
        political subjects. 

        

        parminder

        

        -------- Forwarded Message --------
        
          
            
              Subject:
              
              [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and
                truly under-way
            
            
              Date:
              
              Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
            
            
              From:
              
              parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
            
            
              Reply-To:
              
              Internet governance related discussions <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
            
            
              To: 
              Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
            
          
        
        

        

        
        



        
        

As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined
          by, or determined, where a country acquired its armaments
          from, in the digital cold war there is going to be a similar
          schism in terms of whose digital security equipment you
          finally trust and buy, as everything gets underpinned by the
          'digital'.... Coupled with the  "digital security" based
          polarisation will be data flows polarisation -- EU is
          determining adequacy tests about where its data can flow to,
          the new US CLOUD Act is determining adequacy test about which
          countries can access data residing in the US for regulatory
          and law enforcement purposes..... 

        
        

We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the
          last decade or so, we rejected global institutions and
          agreements for Internet and digital governance... What is
          significant is the role that civil society groups played in
          such rejection, and thus must share the blame of the oncoming
          digital polarisation which leaves all countries that are not
          the US and China at the abject mercy of these digital super
          powers ... parminder

        
        



        
        



        
        

internetgovernance.org 
        A Chinese Perspective on the Growing
          High-Tech Cold War
        by Jinhe Liu
        
          9-12 minutes
        
        
        
          
            
              
                

In Chinese online discussions, many people are
                    using the expression “one sword throat-slashing
                    strike.” [一剑封喉] This forbidding term refers to the
                    United States’ seven-year export ban on China’s second-largest telecom
                      supplier, ZTE, which threatens
                    its very existence and has put the company “in a state of shock.”
                    In the Chinese language, the “one sword
                    throat-slashing strike” means that in battle a
                    master swiftly strikes a death blow before the
                    victim has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this
                    idiom with high frequency in the context of the
                    Sino-US trade war shows that there is both a feeling
                    of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere dispersing
                    though the Chinese society.
                

In January this year, the United States blocked
                    Chinese tech company Alibaba’s acquisition of
                    American remittance company MoneyGram; also in the
                    name of national security it forced AT&T to end
                    cooperation with Huawei. At the same time, the Trump
                    administration ordered high tariffs on imported
                    steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds of
                    tariffs on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the
                    presidential memorandum and announced the Section
                    301 investigation of China, which was widely
                    regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade
                    disputes between China and the United States. In
                    April 16th, the United States launched its
                    “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some analysts
                    are still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war
                    will happen, on the other side of the Pacific the
                    war fire has already begun to burn, as a sense of
                    economic conflict develops between the two largest
                    economies in the world. The New
                      York Times Chinese version
                    characterized the Sino-US dispute over technology
                    and trade as a “New Cold War Era.”
                

After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came
                    on April 16, all of China is engaged in a big
                    discussion of this event. A large number of articles
                    about it emerge in the mainstream media and social
                    media platforms every day. The strength of the
                    reaction have probably exceeded the expectations of
                    American society, and even China’s own. On the
                    whole, Chinese society has discovered that its
                    high-tech industry is weak and unable to resist the
                    US punch, especially because of its dependence on US
                    semiconductors. It has been pointed out that none of
                    the 20 top semiconductor companies in the world is
                    in mainland China (see the table below, which shows
                    only the top 10). Civil society, academia, industry,
                    and even the government are contemplating the
                    fragility of China’s industrial development and
                    trying to provide effective solutions. The fact that
                    ZTE violated American law has not been evaded in
                    China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago
                    America launched a precise strike against Syria, the
                    United States is now launching an accurate and fatal
                    strike to Chinese national enterprises.
                



                
                

After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years
                    ago, it has paid  892 million US dollars for its
                    mistakes and has reached a settlement agreement with
                    the US government. Because this strong penalty
                    against ZTE was closely followed by the fierce
                    Sino-US tariff war, Chinese people do not believe
                    that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s violation
                    of the sanctions. According to the Wall
                      Street Journal, the US Trade
                    Representative Office (USTR) is considering actions
                      against the business of Alibaba Cloud
                    in the US. A US congressional
                      report also accuses other
                    Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of
                    facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news
                    shows that the US Justice Department has launched an
                      investigation into whether Huawei
                    breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions make
                    the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in
                    a bigger war.
                

Americans may not realize that these actions
                    can be counterproductive. They provoke nationalistic
                    sentiment in Chinese society. In history, whenever
                    China has encountered damaging and perceived unfair
                    treatment from outside, there was always a strong
                    nationalistic reaction. Signs of this familiar
                    pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s
                    central news agency used very tough words and
                    phrases after the extra tariff on China’s $100
                    billion exports to the US was announced, such as
                    “the Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not
                    blame us for not having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！]
                    These words are generally used for the announcement
                    of a war in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE
                    chairman said that “we have the support of 1.3
                    billion (Chinese) people, and we have the ability
                    and determination to tide over this difficulty,”
                    after Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at
                    76 years old, rushed to the United States to plead
                    but without any fruit, which aroused huge empathy by
                  a picture spread
                    widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China
                    . Then ZTE further issued a statement that
                    the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a
                    spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce also made
                    a strong statement, saying that China is “ready to
                    take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate
                    rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.”
                    Chinese netizens even began to discuss whether the
                    country should take corresponding measures on Apple,
                    widely quoting an article in Forbes
                    which suggests that if China retaliates against
                    Apple, it will cause massive layoffs and crash in
                    its stock price. 
                

The US moves have also encouraged high-level
                    political leaders in China to push for abandoning
                    American products and developing their own high-tech
                    industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on
                    April 21st that “core
                    technology is the pillar of the country” at the
                    national network security and information
                    conference. And the Premier Li Keqiang also spoke at
                    the Executive meeting of the State Council to
                    promote a national innovation system aiming at
                    science and technology development. In fact, Chinese
                    are concerned not only about the economic losses of
                    the US sanctions, but also about inadequate
                    self-protection, and, what is more, about the future
                    of international trade.
                

In a more profound context, these actions of
                    China and the United States are not only solutions
                    to the trade deficit, but an abandonment of
                    globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold
                    War, the world entered a golden age of “neoliberal”
                    globalization. International trade promoted the
                    growth of the world economy. According to the statistics of the
                      World Bank, whereas the average
                    growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5 times
                    that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War
                    II, and in the 1990s trade grew more than twice as
                    fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between China and the
                    United States have brought great benefits to both
                    sides. The low-cost manufacturing industry in China
                    provides a continuous supply for the high
                    consumption society of the United States. The huge
                    demand and advanced industrial technology of the
                    United States have brought a strong pull to the
                    Chinese economy. While the order of economic
                    globalization was established by the United States,
                    it is now the United States who destroys it. Today’s
                    trading system is so closely intertwined that it is
                    not all beneficial for the US to undermine the order
                    it built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S. suppliers
                    fell on the news of the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings also
                    points out that China’s proposed tariffs would
                    affect about 2.1 million jobs spread across 2,783 US
                    counties.
                

The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and
                    the global economy by a trade war will be huge, but
                    it is even more worrying that the global free trade
                    order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on
                    April 10th, Xi Jinping announced
                      further opening up of the
                    Chinese market and strengthening the protection of
                    intellectual property to integrate China deeper into
                    the world trade system. But the Trump administration
                    seems to ignore this deliberately. As mentioned
                    above, Chinese society is worried mainly about the
                    prospect of its national development in the context
                    of the times. Therefore, if more trade wars happen,
                    it is not only likely to lead to China’s aggressive
                    self-protection measures but also is likely to have
                    a far-reaching impact on how Chinese understand
                    international rules. Solving the impartiality of
                    trade rules is a process that requires stakeholders
                    to sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade might
                    well backfire.
                

If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from
                    the perspective of Internet governance, it can be
                    found that the Internet seems to be splitting up. A
                    one-world Internet should be interconnected across
                    the borders of states, but now territorial
                    governments are trying to strengthen their control
                    by aligning the Internet with national
                    jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the
                    products of some American Internet giants, and now,
                    the United States has also begun to block China’s
                    products. The United States is
                      becoming Chinese. The state has
                    labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes
                    it from its own territory in the name of national
                    security or the protection of its own industries.
                    Some commentaries assert that the actions by the
                    United States against Huawei and ZTE are trying to
                    keep the US the leading position in the 5G
                    technology. But the establishment of walls to
                    exclude competition deviates from liberalism. The
                    United States is a strong advocate of the freedom of
                    the Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder
                    model, advocated bottom-up technical autonomy and
                    open industrial competition; it has resisted giving
                    governments too much control of the Internet. But
                    now, on the contrary, the government of the world’s
                    most powerful Internet country is holding high the
                    banner of national security to expel market actors
                    who place it at a competitive disadvantage. 
                

When the advocates of rules break the rules,
                    global confidence is badly damaged. But it is still
                    hopeful that United States Secretary of the Treasury
                    Mnuchin is on his way to China to negotiate. So the
                    rule of free trade and Internet openness has not
                    been completely abandoned yet.
              
            
          
        
      
      

      
      

      ---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

    
    

  






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/c723184f/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Tue Apr  3 18:23:25 2018
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:23:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] [gaia] Network self-determination: When building
 the Internet becomes a right
In-Reply-To: <4B6296ABAE1FC944984F6C9FE996FE19015425500B@DC6010.fgv.br>
References: <4B6296ABAE1FC944984F6C9FE996FE19015425500B@DC6010.fgv.br>
Message-ID: <3fc66c2d-9b8c-ae62-173f-7e94b4458159@riseup.net>


Liebe freunde

Luca Belli of Brazil distributes his naivety.

"Network self-determination"?
Can we find a network anywhere on our planet, that determine itself? 
Only we the people can do that. A network is a description of 
inter-connected devices in the structure of a net. We use this devices, 
define her processing and the interrelation of the different part in 
this connections of connections.

"When building the Internet becomes a right"?
Never. Who will be able to do that? Who have the capacity to do that? 
All this people in the private/state telecommunication area don't 
understand, what is telecommunication. They act only to organise 
moneyflows. No more.

Only we itself can create our telecommunication in form of an InterNet. 
And we don't need any permission. The only, what we need is to 
understand, what is a InterNet: A transportsystem of digital data in 
paketform.

But be clear, InterNet means "Inter-connection of local Net-works". And 
not in any bus or star structure. In a Net-structure. This means, that 
every node in this net is connected to his neighbors.


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [gaia] Network self-determination: When building the Internet 
becomes a right
Datum: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:38:07 +0000
Von: Luca Belli <luca.belli at fgv.br>
An: gaia at irtf.org <gaia at irtf.org>

Dear GAIA members,
I thought this might be of interest
Kind regards
Luca

Network self-determination: When building the Internet becomes a right
There is no doubt that network self-determination reinforces the 
distributed nature of the Internet and there is no reason why 
individuals should not have the possibility to build the Internet 
themselves, improving their standards of living while bridging digital 
divides.
By: Luca Belli<http://www.ietfjournal.org/contributing_authors/luca-belli/>
Date: March 28, 2018
[line break image]

Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and 
communication technologies play an increasingly essential role in every 
connected individual’s life. Access to well-functioning network 
infrastructure on affordable and non-discriminatory terms facilitates 
significantly the full enjoyment of one’s fundamental rights. Internet 
users can easily access knowledge and education, conduct businesses by 
trading goods and services online, and utilize digital public services, 
from paying taxes to applying to schools and receiving remote medical 
consultations.

As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has 
become an integral part of our lives and our environment, affecting 
substantially how we form our opinions, how we socialize and learn and, 
ultimately, what opportunities we are able to grasp over the course of 
our lives. But what about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our 
societies, due to the uneven distribution of digital dividends between 
those for which connectivity is available and easily affordable and 
those who are either unconnected or face considerable challenges to 
connect.[1]<http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/#_ftn1>

This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely 
connected individuals can regain control over their digital futures, 
building their own community networks and enjoying what I define as 
“network 
self-determination.”[2]<http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/#_ftn2> 
I argue that network self-determination leads to several positive 
externalities for the affected communities while preserving the Internet 
as a distributed, interoperable and generative network of networks.

In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying network 
self-determination seem to prove that “the design and development of the 
Internet infrastructure have a growing impact on 
society”[3]<http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/#_ftn3> 
and foster a digital environment that enables human rights.

Continues here 
http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/


Feel free to share https://twitter.com/1lucabelli/status/979020870231449601



[FGV Direito Rio]

Luca Belli, PhD
Senior Researcher
Head of Internet Governance @ FGV<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>
luca.belli at fgv.br
+55 21 3799 5763
@1lucabelli<https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>

[http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]





From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 04:14:00 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:44:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is
 well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
 <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
 <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <9ef5c149-5871-330b-57fe-82ea798489df@itforchange.net>


On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese POV
> (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?

Suresh, I have not ever responded to your emails for many many years now
bec our exchanges have tended not to go very well... But in the interest
of seeking a new beginning for these IG civil society spaces, I'd make
an exception.

No, I do not propose introducing any "narrow and slanted Chinese POV" to
try and balance.... BTW, the referred article which you say smacks of
propaganda comes from Milton Mueller led IGP's (Internet Governance
Project) website, and there have been similar articles on that website,
and  I understand it is within overall IGP's policy direction.... I do
not think anyone can plausibly characterise IGP's policy orientation as
being of promoting Chinese propaganda!

On the other hand, as my note below characterising China as one of the
global digital power seeking to dominate the world shows, I am equally
critical of China's digital imperial tendencies.. For instance I wrote
this oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece>.
And a few  hours back forwarded to another elist this article as a major
horror in the making
<http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2143899/forget-facebook-leak-china-mining-data-directly-workers-brains?utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=ET_batch&utm_campaign=etcio_news_2018-04-30>
..

What I propose is developing and implementing a genuinely global public
interest oriented strategy, with a marked partiality towards the weaker
and disadvantaged groups (as civil society should always take) -- and in
this regard to recognise and discard the habitual pro US-led western
powers and big business aligned stands that global civil society in IG
has become accustomed to take...

parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     And it is not old history at all....
>
>     Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI 
>     https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical
>
>     But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD
>     means not a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but an
>     OECD led dialogue...  (which IG civil society has customarily
>     cheered and participated in, while condemning any possible UN process)
>
>     One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global dialogues,
>     rules and agreements, just as an example, Wired carries one such
>     all today "Data protection standards need to be global
>     <https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global>"
>     ... There are others on AI, and so on...
>
>     But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that the
>     UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on International Internet-related
>     polices) closed without a report because not only the western
>     countries and the big business but also the Internet community and
>     much of IG civil society could not agree there really were
>     Internet/ digital governance issues that needed global addressing
>     (other than perhaps as they were already being addressed by the
>     OECD, World Economic Forum and the such)....
>
>     And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP cheering
>     the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not another word on
>     the subject by anyone...
>
>     Is there any global civil society in any other area which is so
>     bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals, much less
>     of accountability and progressive notions like working for the
>     weakest, social justice, economic rights, and so on.... Could we
>     yet reassemble and take up our responsibilities...
>
>     parminder
>
>
>     On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>     I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are
>>     substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of
>>     forwarding this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :)
>>     - issue of pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in
>>     the IG space over the last one decade or so in being partisan to
>>     narrow US led western interests and having considerably forgotten
>>     to promote global public interest, and the interests of the
>>     weakest sections, groups and countries. And, as often happens in
>>     the mid to long term, such partisanship is no longer serving even
>>     western interests that well.
>>
>>     My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing
>>     and promoting an effort at a collective rethink and
>>     re-orientation among the IG civil society about its politics and
>>     role, as we enter a digital society where Internet or digital
>>     governance is one of the most important political subjects.
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>     Subject: 	[JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and
>>     truly under-way
>>     Date: 	Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
>>     From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>     Reply-To: 	Internet governance related discussions
>>     <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>>     To: 	Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by,
>>     or determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in
>>     the digital cold war there is going to be a similar schism in
>>     terms of whose digital security equipment you finally trust and
>>     buy, as everything gets underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled
>>     with the  "digital security" based polarisation will be data
>>     flows polarisation -- EU is determining adequacy tests about
>>     where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is determining
>>     adequacy test about which countries can access data residing in
>>     the US for regulatory and law enforcement purposes.....
>>
>>     We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last
>>     decade or so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for
>>     Internet and digital governance... What is significant is the
>>     role that civil society groups played in such rejection, and thus
>>     must share the blame of the oncoming digital polarisation which
>>     leaves all countries that are not the US and China at the abject
>>     mercy of these digital super powers ... parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>     internetgovernance.org
>>     <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>
>>
>>
>>
>>       A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
>>
>>     by Jinhe Liu
>>     9-12 minutes
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the
>>     expression “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This
>>     forbidding term refers to the United States’ seven-year export
>>     ban on China’s second-largest telecom supplier, ZTE
>>     <https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
>>     which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a
>>     state of shock.
>>     <http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
>>     In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike”
>>     means that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before
>>     the victim has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with
>>     high frequency in the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that
>>     there is both a feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere
>>     dispersing though the Chinese society.
>>
>>     In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech
>>     company Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company
>>     MoneyGram; also in the name of national security it forced AT&T
>>     to end cooperation with Huawei. At the same time, the Trump
>>     administration ordered high tariffs on imported steel and
>>     aluminum and threatened several rounds of tariffs on China. On
>>     March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential memorandum and
>>     announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which was
>>     widely regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes
>>     between China and the United States. In April 16th, the United
>>     States launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some
>>     analysts are still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will
>>     happen, on the other side of the Pacific the war fire has already
>>     begun to burn, as a sense of economic conflict develops between
>>     the two largest economies in the world. The /New York Times
>>     Chinese version/characterized the Sino-US dispute over technology
>>     and trade as a “New Cold War Era
>>     <https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”
>>
>>     After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all
>>     of China is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large
>>     number of articles about it emerge in the mainstream media and
>>     social media platforms every day. The strength of the reaction
>>     have probably exceeded the expectations of American society, and
>>     even China’s own. On the whole, Chinese society has discovered
>>     that its high-tech industry is weak and unable to resist the US
>>     punch, especially because of its dependence on US semiconductors.
>>     It has been pointed out that none of the 20 top semiconductor
>>     companies in the world is in mainland China (see the table below,
>>     which shows only the top 10). Civil society, academia, industry,
>>     and even the government are contemplating the fragility of
>>     China’s industrial development and trying to provide effective
>>     solutions. The fact that ZTE violated American law has not been
>>     evaded in China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago
>>     America launched a precise strike against Syria, the United
>>     States is now launching an accurate and fatal strike to Chinese
>>     national enterprises.
>>
>>
>>     After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid
>>      892 million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a
>>     settlement agreement with the US government. Because this strong
>>     penalty against ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US
>>     tariff war, Chinese people do not believe that America’s main
>>     concern is just ZTE’s violation of the sanctions. According to
>>     the /Wall Street Journal/, the US Trade Representative Office
>>     (USTR) is considering actions against the business of Alibaba
>>     Cloud
>>     <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>in
>>     the US. A US congressional report
>>     <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
>>     accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of
>>     facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the
>>     US Justice Department has launched an investigation
>>     <https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>into
>>     whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions
>>     make the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a
>>     bigger war.
>>
>>     Americans may not realize that these actions can be
>>     counterproductive. They provoke nationalistic sentiment in
>>     Chinese society. In history, whenever China has encountered
>>     damaging and perceived unfair treatment from outside, there was
>>     always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs of this familiar
>>     pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s central news
>>     agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra tariff
>>     on China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such as
>>     “the Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for
>>     not having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are
>>     generally used for the announcement of a war in Chinese
>>     diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE chairman said that “we have the
>>     support of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we have the ability
>>     and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after Hou
>>     Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old, rushed
>>     to the United States to plead but without any fruit, which
>>     aroused huge empathy by a picture
>>     <https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
>>     widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE
>>     further issued a statement
>>     <http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
>>     the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for
>>     China’s Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying
>>     that China is “ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the
>>     legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese
>>     netizens even began to discuss whether the country should take
>>     corresponding measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in
>>     Forbes
>>     <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>which
>>     suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause
>>     massive layoffs and crash in its stock price.
>>
>>     The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in
>>     China to push for abandoning American products and developing
>>     their own high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping
>>     stressed on April 21stthat “core technology is the pillar of the
>>     country” at the national network security and information
>>     conference. And the Premier Li Keqiang also spoke at the
>>     Executive meeting of the State Council to promote a national
>>     innovation system aiming at science and technology development.
>>     In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses
>>     of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate self-protection,
>>     and, what is more, about the future of international trade.
>>
>>     In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United
>>     States are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an
>>     abandonment of globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold
>>     War, the world entered a golden age of “neoliberal”
>>     globalization. International trade promoted the growth of the
>>     world economy. According to the statistics of the World Bank
>>     <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
>>     whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5
>>     times that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and
>>     in the 1990s trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade
>>     exchanges between China and the United States have brought great
>>     benefits to both sides. The low-cost manufacturing industry in
>>     China provides a continuous supply for the high consumption
>>     society of the United States. The huge demand and advanced
>>     industrial technology of the United States have brought a strong
>>     pull to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic
>>     globalization was established by the United States, it is now the
>>     United States who destroys it. Today’s trading system is so
>>     closely intertwined that it is not all beneficial for the US to
>>     undermine the order it built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S.
>>     suppliers fell on the news of the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
>>     <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
>>     points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1
>>     million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.
>>
>>     The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy
>>     by a trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that
>>     the global free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia
>>     Forum on April 10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up
>>     <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
>>     the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of
>>     intellectual property to integrate China deeper into the world
>>     trade system. But the Trump administration seems to ignore this
>>     deliberately. As mentioned above, Chinese society is worried
>>     mainly about the prospect of its national development in the
>>     context of the times. Therefore, if more trade wars happen, it is
>>     not only likely to lead to China’s aggressive self-protection
>>     measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching impact on how
>>     Chinese understand international rules. Solving the impartiality
>>     of trade rules is a process that requires stakeholders to sit
>>     down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well backfire.
>>
>>     If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of
>>     Internet governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to
>>     be splitting up. A one-world Internet should be interconnected
>>     across the borders of states, but now territorial governments are
>>     trying to strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with
>>     national jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the
>>     products of some American Internet giants, and now, the United
>>     States has also begun to block China’s products. The United
>>     States is becoming Chinese
>>     <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
>>     The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes
>>     it from its own territory in the name of national security or the
>>     protection of its own industries. Some commentaries assert that
>>     the actions by the United States against Huawei and ZTE are
>>     trying to keep the US the leading position in the 5G technology.
>>     But the establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates
>>     from liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of the
>>     freedom of the Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder
>>     model, advocated bottom-up technical autonomy and open industrial
>>     competition; it has resisted giving governments too much control
>>     of the Internet. But now, on the contrary, the government of the
>>     world’s most powerful Internet country is holding high the banner
>>     of national security to expel market actors who place it at a
>>     competitive disadvantage.
>>
>>     When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is
>>     badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States
>>     Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to
>>     negotiate. So the rule of free trade and Internet openness has
>>     not been completely abandoned yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>     ---
>>     To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>     List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/f8f353ef/attachment.htm>

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 30 04:53:53 2018
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:23:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is
 well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <9ef5c149-5871-330b-57fe-82ea798489df@itforchange.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
 <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
 <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
 <9ef5c149-5871-330b-57fe-82ea798489df@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C57108BF-E462-4082-8196-59467D2B9201@hserus.net>

Good for you for being critical.  However I am yet to find a single civil society led article on either side of this debate that achieves a genuine balance and actually tries to build bridges rather than push a single point of view.

 

Given this, a meeting of minds does not appear possible due to vested interests across the board – and so multistakeholder engagements beyond a certain scale look doomed to collapse under these influences, or be so neutral as to go nowhere in particular at all.

 

An interesting problem to solve, because goodwill appears sadly lacking among many players in this space.

 

 

From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2018 at 1:44 PM
To: "suresh at hserus.net" <suresh at hserus.net>, <governance at lists.riseup.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly under-way

 

 

On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese POV (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?


Suresh, I have not ever responded to your emails for many many years now bec our exchanges have tended not to go very well... But in the interest of seeking a new beginning for these IG civil society spaces, I'd make an exception. 

No, I do not propose introducing any "narrow and slanted Chinese POV" to try and balance.... BTW, the referred article which you say smacks of propaganda comes from Milton Mueller led IGP's (Internet Governance Project) website, and there have been similar articles on that website, and  I understand it is within overall IGP's policy direction.... I do not think anyone can plausibly characterise IGP's policy orientation as being of promoting Chinese propaganda!

On the other hand, as my note below characterising China as one of the global digital power seeking to dominate the world shows, I am equally critical of China's digital imperial tendencies.. For instance I wrote this oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions. And a few  hours back forwarded to another elist this article as a major horror in the making .. 

What I propose is developing and implementing a genuinely global public interest oriented strategy, with a marked partiality towards the weaker and disadvantaged groups (as civil society should always take) -- and in this regard to recognise and discard the habitual pro US-led western powers and big business aligned stands that global civil society in IG has become accustomed to take... 

parminder 

 

 



On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

And it is not old history at all.... 

Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI  https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical

But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD means not a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but an OECD led dialogue...  (which IG civil society has customarily cheered and participated in, while condemning any possible UN process)

One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global dialogues, rules and agreements, just as an example, Wired carries one such all today "Data protection standards need to be global" ... There are others on AI, and so on...

But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that the UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on International Internet-related polices) closed without a report because not only the western countries and the big business but also the Internet community and much of IG civil society could not agree there really were Internet/ digital governance issues that needed global addressing (other than perhaps as they were already being addressed by the OECD, World Economic Forum and the such)....

And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP cheering the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not another word on the subject by anyone...

Is there any global civil society in any other area which is so bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals, much less of accountability and progressive notions like working for the weakest, social justice, economic rights, and so on.... Could we yet reassemble and take up our responsibilities... 

parminder 

 

On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:

I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of forwarding this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :) - issue of pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in the IG space over the last one decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led western interests and having considerably forgotten to promote global public interest, and the interests of the weakest sections, groups and countries. And, as often happens in the mid to long term, such partisanship is no longer serving even western interests that well. 

My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing and promoting an effort at a collective rethink and re-orientation among the IG civil society about its politics and role, as we enter a digital society where Internet or digital governance is one of the most important political subjects. 

parminder

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 

Subject: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly under-way
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: Internet governance related discussions <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
To: Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>

 

 

As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by, or determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in the digital cold war there is going to be a similar schism in terms of whose digital security equipment you finally trust and buy, as everything gets underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the  "digital security" based polarisation will be data flows polarisation -- EU is determining adequacy tests about where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is determining adequacy test about which countries can access data residing in the US for regulatory and law enforcement purposes..... 

We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last decade or so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for Internet and digital governance... What is significant is the role that civil society groups played in such rejection, and thus must share the blame of the oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries that are not the US and China at the abject mercy of these digital super powers ... parminder

 

 

internetgovernance.org 
A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
by Jinhe Liu

9-12 minutes

In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the expression “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This forbidding term refers to the United States’ seven-year export ban on China’s second-largest telecom supplier, ZTE, which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a state of shock.” In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike” means that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before the victim has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency in the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both a feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere dispersing though the Chinese society.

In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech company Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company MoneyGram; also in the name of national security it forced AT&T to end cooperation with Huawei. At the same time, the Trump administration ordered high tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds of tariffs on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential memorandum and announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which was widely regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes between China and the United States. In April 16th, the United States launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some analysts are still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will happen, on the other side of the Pacific the war fire has already begun to burn, as a sense of economic conflict develops between the two largest economies in the world. The New York Times Chinese version characterized the Sino-US dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold War Era.”

After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all of China is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large number of articles about it emerge in the mainstream media and social media platforms every day. The strength of the reaction have probably exceeded the expectations of American society, and even China’s own. On the whole, Chinese society has discovered that its high-tech industry is weak and unable to resist the US punch, especially because of its dependence on US semiconductors. It has been pointed out that none of the 20 top semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland China (see the table below, which shows only the top 10). Civil society, academia, industry, and even the government are contemplating the fragility of China’s industrial development and trying to provide effective solutions. The fact that ZTE violated American law has not been evaded in China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago America launched a precise strike against Syria, the United States is now launching an accurate and fatal strike to Chinese national enterprises.

 

After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid  892 million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a settlement agreement with the US government. Because this strong penalty against ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese people do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s violation of the sanctions. According to the Wall Street Journal, the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is considering actions against the business of Alibaba Cloud in the US. A US congressional report also accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the US Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions make the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a bigger war.

Americans may not realize that these actions can be counterproductive. They provoke nationalistic sentiment in Chinese society. In history, whenever China has encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment from outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs of this familiar pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s central news agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra tariff on China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such as “the Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally used for the announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE chairman said that “we have the support of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we have the ability and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old, rushed to the United States to plead but without any fruit, which aroused huge empathy by a picture spread widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE further issued a statement that the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying that China is “ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even began to discuss whether the country should take corresponding measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in Forbes which suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause massive layoffs and crash in its stock price. 

The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in China to push for abandoning American products and developing their own high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on April 21st that “core technology is the pillar of the country” at the national network security and information conference. And the Premier Li Keqiang also spoke at the Executive meeting of the State Council to promote a national innovation system aiming at science and technology development. In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate self-protection, and, what is more, about the future of international trade.

In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United States are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an abandonment of globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War, the world entered a golden age of “neoliberal” globalization. International trade promoted the growth of the world economy. According to the statistics of the World Bank, whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5 times that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and in the 1990s trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between China and the United States have brought great benefits to both sides. The low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a continuous supply for the high consumption society of the United States. The huge demand and advanced industrial technology of the United States have brought a strong pull to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic globalization was established by the United States, it is now the United States who destroys it. Today’s trading system is so closely intertwined that it is not all beneficial for the US to undermine the order it built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S. suppliers fell on the news of the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings also points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1 million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.

The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy by a trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that the global free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April 10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up of the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of intellectual property to integrate China deeper into the world trade system. But the Trump administration seems to ignore this deliberately. As mentioned above, Chinese society is worried mainly about the prospect of its national development in the context of the times. Therefore, if more trade wars happen, it is not only likely to lead to China’s aggressive self-protection measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching impact on how Chinese understand international rules. Solving the impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires stakeholders to sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well backfire.

If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of Internet governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to be splitting up. A one-world Internet should be interconnected across the borders of states, but now territorial governments are trying to strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with national jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the products of some American Internet giants, and now, the United States has also begun to block China’s products. The United States is becoming Chinese. The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes it from its own territory in the name of national security or the protection of its own industries. Some commentaries assert that the actions by the United States against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep the US the leading position in the 5G technology. But the establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates from liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of the freedom of the Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder model, advocated bottom-up technical autonomy and open industrial competition; it has resisted giving governments too much control of the Internet. But now, on the contrary, the government of the world’s most powerful Internet country is holding high the banner of national security to expel market actors who place it at a competitive disadvantage. 

When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to negotiate. So the rule of free trade and Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.




---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/bbbd832f/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 05:08:23 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:38:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is
 well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <C57108BF-E462-4082-8196-59467D2B9201@hserus.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
 <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
 <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
 <9ef5c149-5871-330b-57fe-82ea798489df@itforchange.net>
 <C57108BF-E462-4082-8196-59467D2B9201@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <f473227f-b89a-6c64-ab57-d3e36f023e72@itforchange.net>

But we cannot despair into paralysis and inaction... Civil society is
the place where the highest and the best ideas, advocacies and social
struggles are shaped . And more than a decade of history invests in this
particular space/ assemblage a certain burden of responsibility and
gravity of being, that cannot be easily developed anew... We, further,
stand at a crucial historical juncture of formation of new social,
economic, political and cultural structures that will provide the
dominant pattern for many many decades. This makes the responsibility
even heavier, and criminal to abdicate.

People here must think of a way out if this hole that we find ourselves
in ...

parminder


On Monday 30 April 2018 02:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> Good for you for being critical.  However I am yet to find a single
> civil society led article on either side of this debate that achieves
> a genuine balance and actually tries to build bridges rather than push
> a single point of view.
>
>  
>
> Given this, a meeting of minds does not appear possible due to vested
> interests across the board – and so multistakeholder engagements
> beyond a certain scale look doomed to collapse under these influences,
> or be so neutral as to go nowhere in particular at all.
>
>  
>
> An interesting problem to solve, because goodwill appears sadly
> lacking among many players in this space.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Date: *Monday, 30 April 2018 at 1:44 PM
> *To: *"suresh at hserus.net" <suresh at hserus.net>,
> <governance at lists.riseup.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold
> war is well and truly under-way
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>     So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese
>     POV (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?
>
>
> Suresh, I have not ever responded to your emails for many many years
> now bec our exchanges have tended not to go very well... But in the
> interest of seeking a new beginning for these IG civil society spaces,
> I'd make an exception.
>
> No, I do not propose introducing any "narrow and slanted Chinese POV"
> to try and balance.... BTW, the referred article which you say smacks
> of propaganda comes from Milton Mueller led IGP's (Internet Governance
> Project) website, and there have been similar articles on that
> website, and  I understand it is within overall IGP's policy
> direction.... I do not think anyone can plausibly characterise IGP's
> policy orientation as being of promoting Chinese propaganda!
>
> On the other hand, as my note below characterising China as one of the
> global digital power seeking to dominate the world shows, I am equally
> critical of China's digital imperial tendencies.. For instance I wrote
> this oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions
> <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece>.
> And a few  hours back forwarded to another elist this article as a
> major horror in the making
> <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2143899/forget-facebook-leak-china-mining-data-directly-workers-brains?utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=ET_batch&utm_campaign=etcio_news_2018-04-30>
> ..
>
> What I propose is developing and implementing a genuinely global
> public interest oriented strategy, with a marked partiality towards
> the weaker and disadvantaged groups (as civil society should always
> take) -- and in this regard to recognise and discard the habitual pro
> US-led western powers and big business aligned stands that global
> civil society in IG has become accustomed to take...
>
> parminder
>
>      
>
>      
>
>
>
>     On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder"
>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>         And it is not old history at all....
>
>         Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI 
>         https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical
>
>         But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD
>         means not a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but
>         an OECD led dialogue...  (which IG civil society has
>         customarily cheered and participated in, while condemning any
>         possible UN process)
>
>         One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global
>         dialogues, rules and agreements, just as an example, Wired
>         carries one such all today "Data protection standards need to
>         be global
>         <https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global>"
>         ... There are others on AI, and so on...
>
>         But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that
>         the UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on International
>         Internet-related polices) closed without a report because not
>         only the western countries and the big business but also the
>         Internet community and much of IG civil society could not
>         agree there really were Internet/ digital governance issues
>         that needed global addressing (other than perhaps as they were
>         already being addressed by the OECD, World Economic Forum and
>         the such)....
>
>         And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP
>         cheering the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not
>         another word on the subject by anyone...
>
>         Is there any global civil society in any other area which is
>         so bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals,
>         much less of accountability and progressive notions like
>         working for the weakest, social justice, economic rights, and
>         so on.... Could we yet reassemble and take up our
>         responsibilities...
>
>         parminder
>
>          
>
>         On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>             I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because
>             rarely are substantive issues posted here in any case, but
>             thought of forwarding this because this refers to my - by
>             now, favourite :) - issue of pointing to the culpability
>             of civil society actors in the IG space over the last one
>             decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led western
>             interests and having considerably forgotten to promote
>             global public interest, and the interests of the weakest
>             sections, groups and countries. And, as often happens in
>             the mid to long term, such partisanship is no longer
>             serving even western interests that well.
>
>             My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at
>             proposing and promoting an effort at a collective rethink
>             and re-orientation among the IG civil society about its
>             politics and role, as we enter a digital society where
>             Internet or digital governance is one of the most
>             important political subjects.
>
>             parminder
>
>             -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
>             *Subject: *
>
>             	
>
>             [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly
>             under-way
>
>             *Date: *
>
>             	
>
>             Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
>
>             *From: *
>
>             	
>
>             parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>             <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>
>             *Reply-To: *
>
>             	
>
>             Internet governance related discussions
>             <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>             <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>             *To: *
>
>             	
>
>             Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>             <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were
>             determined by, or determined, where a country acquired its
>             armaments from, in the digital cold war there is going to
>             be a similar schism in terms of whose digital security
>             equipment you finally trust and buy, as everything gets
>             underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the 
>             "digital security" based polarisation will be data flows
>             polarisation -- EU is determining adequacy tests about
>             where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is
>             determining adequacy test about which countries can access
>             data residing in the US for regulatory and law enforcement
>             purposes.....
>
>             We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the
>             last decade or so, we rejected global institutions and
>             agreements for Internet and digital governance... What is
>             significant is the role that civil society groups played
>             in such rejection, and thus must share the blame of the
>             oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries
>             that are not the US and China at the abject mercy of these
>             digital super powers ... parminder
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             internetgovernance.org
>             <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>
>
>
>
>               A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
>
>             by Jinhe Liu
>
>             9-12 minutes
>
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>             In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the
>             expression “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This
>             forbidding term refers to the United States’ seven-year
>             export ban on China’s second-largest telecom supplier, ZTE
>             <https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
>             which threatens its very existence and has put the company
>             “in a state of shock.
>             <http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
>             In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing
>             strike” means that in battle a master swiftly strikes a
>             death blow before the victim has a chance to resist.
>             Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency in the
>             context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both
>             a feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere
>             dispersing though the Chinese society.
>
>             In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese
>             tech company Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance
>             company MoneyGram; also in the name of national security
>             it forced AT&T to end cooperation with Huawei. At the same
>             time, the Trump administration ordered high tariffs on
>             imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds
>             of tariffs on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the
>             presidential memorandum and announced the Section 301
>             investigation of China, which was widely regarded as the
>             focus of the outbreak of trade disputes between China and
>             the United States. In April 16th, the United States
>             launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some
>             analysts are still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war
>             will happen, on the other side of the Pacific the war fire
>             has already begun to burn, as a sense of economic conflict
>             develops between the two largest economies in the world.
>             The /New York Times Chinese version/ characterized the
>             Sino-US dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold
>             War Era
>             <https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”
>
>             After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April
>             16, all of China is engaged in a big discussion of this
>             event. A large number of articles about it emerge in the
>             mainstream media and social media platforms every day. The
>             strength of the reaction have probably exceeded the
>             expectations of American society, and even China’s own. On
>             the whole, Chinese society has discovered that its
>             high-tech industry is weak and unable to resist the US
>             punch, especially because of its dependence on US
>             semiconductors. It has been pointed out that none of the
>             20 top semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland
>             China (see the table below, which shows only the top 10).
>             Civil society, academia, industry, and even the government
>             are contemplating the fragility of China’s industrial
>             development and trying to provide effective solutions. The
>             fact that ZTE violated American law has not been evaded in
>             China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago
>             America launched a precise strike against Syria, the
>             United States is now launching an accurate and fatal
>             strike to Chinese national enterprises.
>
>              
>
>             After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has
>             paid  892 million US dollars for its mistakes and has
>             reached a settlement agreement with the US government.
>             Because this strong penalty against ZTE was closely
>             followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese people
>             do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s
>             violation of the sanctions. According to the /Wall Street
>             Journal/, the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is
>             considering actions against the business of Alibaba Cloud
>             <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>
>             in the US. A US congressional report
>             <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
>             accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and
>             Lenovo, of facilitating commercial espionage. The latest
>             news shows that the US Justice Department has launched an
>             investigation
>             <https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>
>             into whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series
>             of actions make the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the
>             first step in a bigger war.
>
>             Americans may not realize that these actions can be
>             counterproductive. They provoke nationalistic sentiment in
>             Chinese society. In history, whenever China has
>             encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment from
>             outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction.
>             Signs of this familiar pattern are appearing again. On
>             April 6, China’s central news agency used very tough words
>             and phrases after the extra tariff on China’s $100 billion
>             exports to the US was announced, such as “the Chinese will
>             struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not having
>             forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally
>             used for the announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic
>             rhetoric. The ZTE chairman said that “we have the support
>             of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we have the ability
>             and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after Hou
>             Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old,
>             rushed to the United States to plead but without any
>             fruit, which aroused huge empathy by a picture
>             <https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
>             widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then
>             ZTE further issued a statement
>             <http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
>             the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman
>             for China’s Ministry of Commerce also made a strong
>             statement, saying that China is “ready to take necessary
>             measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests
>             of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even began to
>             discuss whether the country should take corresponding
>             measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in Forbes
>             <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>
>             which suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it
>             will cause massive layoffs and crash in its stock price.
>
>             The US moves have also encouraged high-level political
>             leaders in China to push for abandoning American products
>             and developing their own high-tech industries. Chinese
>             President Xi Jinping stressed on April 21st that “core
>             technology is the pillar of the country” at the national
>             network security and information conference. And the
>             Premier Li Keqiang also spoke at the Executive meeting of
>             the State Council to promote a national innovation system
>             aiming at science and technology development. In fact,
>             Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses
>             of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate
>             self-protection, and, what is more, about the future of
>             international trade.
>
>             In a more profound context, these actions of China and the
>             United States are not only solutions to the trade deficit,
>             but an abandonment of globalization. Since the end of the
>             US-Soviet Cold War, the world entered a golden age of
>             “neoliberal” globalization. International trade promoted
>             the growth of the world economy. According to the
>             statistics of the World Bank
>             <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
>             whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods
>             was 1.5 times that of the world’s GDP since the end of
>             World War II, and in the 1990s trade grew more than twice
>             as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between China and the
>             United States have brought great benefits to both sides.
>             The low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a
>             continuous supply for the high consumption society of the
>             United States. The huge demand and advanced industrial
>             technology of the United States have brought a strong pull
>             to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic
>             globalization was established by the United States, it is
>             now the United States who destroys it. Today’s trading
>             system is so closely intertwined that it is not all
>             beneficial for the US to undermine the order it built. The
>             share prices of ZTE’s U.S. suppliers fell on the news of
>             the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
>             <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
>             points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect
>             about 2.1 million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.
>
>             The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global
>             economy by a trade war will be huge, but it is even more
>             worrying that the global free trade order is being
>             disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April 10th, Xi
>             Jinping announced further opening up
>             <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
>             the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of
>             intellectual property to integrate China deeper into the
>             world trade system. But the Trump administration seems to
>             ignore this deliberately. As mentioned above, Chinese
>             society is worried mainly about the prospect of its
>             national development in the context of the times.
>             Therefore, if more trade wars happen, it is not only
>             likely to lead to China’s aggressive self-protection
>             measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching impact
>             on how Chinese understand international rules. Solving the
>             impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires
>             stakeholders to sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade
>             might well backfire.
>
>             If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the
>             perspective of Internet governance, it can be found that
>             the Internet seems to be splitting up. A one-world
>             Internet should be interconnected across the borders of
>             states, but now territorial governments are trying to
>             strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with
>             national jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the
>             products of some American Internet giants, and now, the
>             United States has also begun to block China’s products.
>             The United States is becoming Chinese
>             <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
>             The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and
>             excludes it from its own territory in the name of national
>             security or the protection of its own industries. Some
>             commentaries assert that the actions by the United States
>             against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep the US the
>             leading position in the 5G technology. But the
>             establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates
>             from liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of
>             the freedom of the Internet. It developed the
>             multi-stakeholder model, advocated bottom-up technical
>             autonomy and open industrial competition; it has resisted
>             giving governments too much control of the Internet. But
>             now, on the contrary, the government of the world’s most
>             powerful Internet country is holding high the banner of
>             national security to expel market actors who place it at a
>             competitive disadvantage.
>
>             When the advocates of rules break the rules, global
>             confidence is badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that
>             United States Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is on his
>             way to China to negotiate. So the rule of free trade and
>             Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.
>
>
>
>
>             ---
>
>             To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>             <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>
>             List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
>          
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/3b4ff39b/attachment.htm>

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 30 05:10:23 2018
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:40:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is
 well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <f473227f-b89a-6c64-ab57-d3e36f023e72@itforchange.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
 <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
 <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
 <9ef5c149-5871-330b-57fe-82ea798489df@itforchange.net>
 <C57108BF-E462-4082-8196-59467D2B9201@hserus.net>
 <f473227f-b89a-6c64-ab57-d3e36f023e72@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <B8D366D2-1E89-4BDF-A923-E8B23F1DB9A8@hserus.net>

An interesting challenge – possibly fixable to some extent by devoting oneself to operational cooperation rather than political consensus, which is always much harder.

 

The political consensus will have to eventually develop, but before that mutual trust based on prior cooperation needs to be engendered.

 

From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2018 at 2:38 PM
To: "suresh at hserus.net" <suresh at hserus.net>, <governance at lists.riseup.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly under-way

 

But we cannot despair into paralysis and inaction... Civil society is the place where the highest and the best ideas, advocacies and social struggles are shaped . And more than a decade of history invests in this particular space/ assemblage a certain burden of responsibility and gravity of being, that cannot be easily developed anew... We, further, stand at a crucial historical juncture of formation of new social, economic, political and cultural structures that will provide the dominant pattern for many many decades. This makes the responsibility even heavier, and criminal to abdicate. 

People here must think of a way out if this hole that we find ourselves in ... 

parminder 

 

On Monday 30 April 2018 02:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

Good for you for being critical.  However I am yet to find a single civil society led article on either side of this debate that achieves a genuine balance and actually tries to build bridges rather than push a single point of view.

 

Given this, a meeting of minds does not appear possible due to vested interests across the board – and so multistakeholder engagements beyond a certain scale look doomed to collapse under these influences, or be so neutral as to go nowhere in particular at all.

 

An interesting problem to solve, because goodwill appears sadly lacking among many players in this space.

 

 

From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2018 at 1:44 PM
To: "suresh at hserus.net" <suresh at hserus.net>, <governance at lists.riseup.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly under-way

 

 

On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese POV (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?


Suresh, I have not ever responded to your emails for many many years now bec our exchanges have tended not to go very well... But in the interest of seeking a new beginning for these IG civil society spaces, I'd make an exception. 

No, I do not propose introducing any "narrow and slanted Chinese POV" to try and balance.... BTW, the referred article which you say smacks of propaganda comes from Milton Mueller led IGP's (Internet Governance Project) website, and there have been similar articles on that website, and  I understand it is within overall IGP's policy direction.... I do not think anyone can plausibly characterise IGP's policy orientation as being of promoting Chinese propaganda!

On the other hand, as my note below characterising China as one of the global digital power seeking to dominate the world shows, I am equally critical of China's digital imperial tendencies.. For instance I wrote this oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions. And a few  hours back forwarded to another elist this article as a major horror in the making .. 

What I propose is developing and implementing a genuinely global public interest oriented strategy, with a marked partiality towards the weaker and disadvantaged groups (as civil society should always take) -- and in this regard to recognise and discard the habitual pro US-led western powers and big business aligned stands that global civil society in IG has become accustomed to take... 

parminder 


 

 




On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

And it is not old history at all.... 

Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI  https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical

But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD means not a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but an OECD led dialogue...  (which IG civil society has customarily cheered and participated in, while condemning any possible UN process)

One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global dialogues, rules and agreements, just as an example, Wired carries one such all today "Data protection standards need to be global" ... There are others on AI, and so on...

But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that the UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on International Internet-related polices) closed without a report because not only the western countries and the big business but also the Internet community and much of IG civil society could not agree there really were Internet/ digital governance issues that needed global addressing (other than perhaps as they were already being addressed by the OECD, World Economic Forum and the such)....

And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP cheering the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not another word on the subject by anyone...

Is there any global civil society in any other area which is so bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals, much less of accountability and progressive notions like working for the weakest, social justice, economic rights, and so on.... Could we yet reassemble and take up our responsibilities... 

parminder 

 

On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:

I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of forwarding this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :) - issue of pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in the IG space over the last one decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led western interests and having considerably forgotten to promote global public interest, and the interests of the weakest sections, groups and countries. And, as often happens in the mid to long term, such partisanship is no longer serving even western interests that well. 

My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing and promoting an effort at a collective rethink and re-orientation among the IG civil society about its politics and role, as we enter a digital society where Internet or digital governance is one of the most important political subjects. 

parminder

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 

Subject: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly under-way
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: Internet governance related discussions <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
To: Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>

 

 

As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by, or determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in the digital cold war there is going to be a similar schism in terms of whose digital security equipment you finally trust and buy, as everything gets underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the  "digital security" based polarisation will be data flows polarisation -- EU is determining adequacy tests about where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is determining adequacy test about which countries can access data residing in the US for regulatory and law enforcement purposes..... 

We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last decade or so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for Internet and digital governance... What is significant is the role that civil society groups played in such rejection, and thus must share the blame of the oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries that are not the US and China at the abject mercy of these digital super powers ... parminder

 

 

internetgovernance.org 
A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
by Jinhe Liu

9-12 minutes

In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the expression “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This forbidding term refers to the United States’ seven-year export ban on China’s second-largest telecom supplier, ZTE, which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a state of shock.” In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike” means that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before the victim has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency in the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both a feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere dispersing though the Chinese society.

In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech company Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company MoneyGram; also in the name of national security it forced AT&T to end cooperation with Huawei. At the same time, the Trump administration ordered high tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds of tariffs on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential memorandum and announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which was widely regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes between China and the United States. In April 16th, the United States launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some analysts are still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will happen, on the other side of the Pacific the war fire has already begun to burn, as a sense of economic conflict develops between the two largest economies in the world. The New York Times Chinese version characterized the Sino-US dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold War Era.”

After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all of China is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large number of articles about it emerge in the mainstream media and social media platforms every day. The strength of the reaction have probably exceeded the expectations of American society, and even China’s own. On the whole, Chinese society has discovered that its high-tech industry is weak and unable to resist the US punch, especially because of its dependence on US semiconductors. It has been pointed out that none of the 20 top semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland China (see the table below, which shows only the top 10). Civil society, academia, industry, and even the government are contemplating the fragility of China’s industrial development and trying to provide effective solutions. The fact that ZTE violated American law has not been evaded in China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago America launched a precise strike against Syria, the United States is now launching an accurate and fatal strike to Chinese national enterprises.

 

After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid  892 million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a settlement agreement with the US government. Because this strong penalty against ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese people do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s violation of the sanctions. According to the Wall Street Journal, the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is considering actions against the business of Alibaba Cloud in the US. A US congressional report also accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the US Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions make the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a bigger war.

Americans may not realize that these actions can be counterproductive. They provoke nationalistic sentiment in Chinese society. In history, whenever China has encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment from outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs of this familiar pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s central news agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra tariff on China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such as “the Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally used for the announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE chairman said that “we have the support of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we have the ability and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old, rushed to the United States to plead but without any fruit, which aroused huge empathy by a picture spread widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE further issued a statement that the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying that China is “ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even began to discuss whether the country should take corresponding measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in Forbes which suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause massive layoffs and crash in its stock price. 

The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in China to push for abandoning American products and developing their own high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on April 21st that “core technology is the pillar of the country” at the national network security and information conference. And the Premier Li Keqiang also spoke at the Executive meeting of the State Council to promote a national innovation system aiming at science and technology development. In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate self-protection, and, what is more, about the future of international trade.

In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United States are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an abandonment of globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War, the world entered a golden age of “neoliberal” globalization. International trade promoted the growth of the world economy. According to the statistics of the World Bank, whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5 times that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and in the 1990s trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between China and the United States have brought great benefits to both sides. The low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a continuous supply for the high consumption society of the United States. The huge demand and advanced industrial technology of the United States have brought a strong pull to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic globalization was established by the United States, it is now the United States who destroys it. Today’s trading system is so closely intertwined that it is not all beneficial for the US to undermine the order it built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S. suppliers fell on the news of the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings also points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1 million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.

The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy by a trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that the global free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April 10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up of the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of intellectual property to integrate China deeper into the world trade system. But the Trump administration seems to ignore this deliberately. As mentioned above, Chinese society is worried mainly about the prospect of its national development in the context of the times. Therefore, if more trade wars happen, it is not only likely to lead to China’s aggressive self-protection measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching impact on how Chinese understand international rules. Solving the impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires stakeholders to sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well backfire.

If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of Internet governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to be splitting up. A one-world Internet should be interconnected across the borders of states, but now territorial governments are trying to strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with national jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the products of some American Internet giants, and now, the United States has also begun to block China’s products. The United States is becoming Chinese. The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes it from its own territory in the name of national security or the protection of its own industries. Some commentaries assert that the actions by the United States against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep the US the leading position in the 5G technology. But the establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates from liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of the freedom of the Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder model, advocated bottom-up technical autonomy and open industrial competition; it has resisted giving governments too much control of the Internet. But now, on the contrary, the government of the world’s most powerful Internet country is holding high the banner of national security to expel market actors who place it at a competitive disadvantage. 

When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to negotiate. So the rule of free trade and Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.





---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
 








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/07d1f282/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Apr 30 12:15:15 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:15:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST/MEETUP TODAY MON: ICANN 61 NYC Readout
 Outreach Event
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1Go_huLgKRRXkdZZACjEra72=o9d4tZ8-MScKYDv6HnA@mail.gmail.com>

 NYC's recap of ICANN 61. Although the event runs  5-8pm, the actual
readout is 6-7pm. How we will fit 5+ days of multitrack discussions into 1
hour I don't know, but our speakers are very capable. You can submit
questions via livestream chat, and we'll keep an eye on twitter. There's
still time to RSVP if you want to attend in person. There will be drinks
and snacks. And an opportunity to gawp at the Chrysler Building's art deco
interior.


​​

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/icann61nyc>On *Monday
April 30 2018* at *5pm*, the* Internet Society New York Chapter
<https://isoc-ny.org/>* (ISOC-NY) will present the *ICANN 61 NYC Readout* at
the offices of Moses & Singer LLP in NYC. Speakers, including *Veni
Markovski* (VP of UN Engagement, ICANN) *Joe Catapano* (Manager of
Stakeholder Engagement North America, ICANN), and Greg Shatan of ISOC-NY,
will review the hot topics from *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers <http://icann.org/>*’ (ICANN) *61st public meeting
<https://meetings.icann.org/en/sanjuan61>*, which took place in *San Juan*
from *10-15 March 2018*. Topics will include the current multistakeholder
system of Internet governance, and the impact of the European Union’s
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)on the Whois sytem. The session
will webcast live on the* Internet Society’s Livestream Channel
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/icann61nyc>*. Please *register
<https://www.meetup.com/isoc-ny/events/250170803/>* on the ISOC-NY Meetup
to attend in person.

*What: ICANN 61 NYC Readout <https://events.columbia.edu/go/ICANN>*
*Where: Moses & SInger LLP <https://sipa.columbia.edu/> 405 Lexington Ave
NYC *
*When: Monday April 30 2018 5pm-8pm EST | *
*Register (to attend in
person): https://www.meetup.com/isoc-ny/events/250170803/
<https://www.meetup.com/isoc-ny/events/250170803/>*
*Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/icann61nyc
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/icann61nyc>* (6pm | 22:00 UTC))
*Twitter: #icann61 bit.ly/icann61tweets
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/bit.ly/icann61tweets>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10168#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10168#comments>


*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10172








-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/9d222876/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Apr 30 13:33:15 2018
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:33:15 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposals open
Message-ID: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@Malcolm.id.au>

Dear All, 

The Secretariat has published the Call for workshop proposals on the IGF
website:

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-call-for-workshop-proposals

Deadline for submission is *27 May 2018*

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/31de48bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/31de48bd/attachment.sig>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Apr 30 13:55:57 2018
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:55:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] IGF workshop proposals open
In-Reply-To: <CAKaWWRFsVpzmhzcu3UPgpem9HkURCsmVAUi2Q3H-SA_Ymy92Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@Malcolm.id.au>
 <CAKaWWRFsVpzmhzcu3UPgpem9HkURCsmVAUi2Q3H-SA_Ymy92Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0bb0a73c-cc91-e6fd-9ce0-4029b553df39@Malcolm.id.au>

On 30/4/18 10:52 am, Peter Micek wrote:
> Thanks, Jeremy. Just for clarification, we are having an IGF this
> year? Will it be in Bangkok around December 10-14?

There will be one, and yes one option is holding it in Asia in December,
but it might also be in a European country in November. This is still
being worked out, so please don't making any bookings for now! Nobody
considers it a satisfactory state of affairs. As soon as I know anything
more, I will pass it on.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180430/5d99aa86/attachment.sig>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Apr 30 23:05:13 2018
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 03:05:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] IGF workshop proposals open
In-Reply-To: <0bb0a73c-cc91-e6fd-9ce0-4029b553df39@malcolm.id.au>
References: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@malcolm.id.au>
 <CAKaWWRFsVpzmhzcu3UPgpem9HkURCsmVAUi2Q3H-SA_Ymy92Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0bb0a73c-cc91-e6fd-9ce0-4029b553df39@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <em7589c755-0417-4dc4-a24c-af9459cc5f45@laptop-93l8qkek>

It would be handy to know the dates and venue for the IGF meeting before 
workshop proposals close. Is that going to happen?


Ian Peter

------ Original Message ------
From: "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
To: "Peter Micek" <peter at accessnow.org>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt" 
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance" 
<governance at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: 1/05/2018 3:55:57 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] IGF workshop proposals open

>On 30/4/18 10:52 am, Peter Micek wrote:
>>Thanks, Jeremy. Just for clarification, we are having an IGF this
>>year? Will it be in Bangkok around December 10-14?
>
>There will be one, and yes one option is holding it in Asia in 
>December,
>but it might also be in a European country in November. This is still
>being worked out, so please don't making any bookings for now! Nobody
>considers it a satisfactory state of affairs. As soon as I know 
>anything
>more, I will pass it on.
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -
>
>


From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Apr  5 09:53:40 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:53:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: St. Vincent & Grenadines Internet
 Governance Forum #SVGIGF
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk07Pt8YVBPBNkmU79NEAxONgqZ+cBg1DDxLDOCtcja+qg@mail.gmail.com>

 This is under way. Bernadette Lewis of the CTU is just about to give her
keynote.

​​


[image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/svgigf2018>
Today, *Thursday April 5 2018* the *Internet Society’s St. Vincent &
Grenadines Chapter <https://www.facebook.com/isocsvg/>* (ISOC SVG) will
host the *SVG Internet Governance Forum 2018
<http://igf.isoc.vc/svgigf-2018/>*. The forum has the theme ‘*Building
Partnerships for Good Internet Governance*‘ and will discuss topics such as
Net Neutrality, Cyber Security, Collaborative Governance and Digital
Financing. The event will be webcast live via the*Internet Society
Livestream Channel
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/svgigf2018>*, *YouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuAWj_WKZvYNImMUDRkwAOA/live>*, and *Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/isocsvg/>*. (No captions).





*View on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/svgigf2018
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/svgigf2018>View on
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/isocsvg/
<https://www.facebook.com/isocsvg/>View on YouTube: YouTube:
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuAWj_WKZvYNImMUDRkwAOA/live>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuAWj_WKZvYNImMUDRkwAOA/live
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuAWj_WKZvYNImMUDRkwAOA/live>
Agenda: http://isoc-ny.org/misc/SVG_IGF_2018.pdf
<http://isoc-ny.org/misc/SVG_IGF_2018.pdf>Twitter: #SVGIGF
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/svgigf>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10032#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10032#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10032 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10032>*






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180405/1e8e1d32/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Fri Apr  6 03:59:01 2018
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amrita" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 13:29:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] Read about IG Events & Policy developments from the
 Indian perspective @CCAOI March, 2018 Newsletter
Message-ID: <017f01d3cd7d$28a6c320$79f44960$@com>

Hi,

 

For those who may be interested, read about Internet Governance Events &
Policy developments from the Indian perspective @ CCAOI March'2018
Newsletter, using this link:
<http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20March%202018
.pdf>
http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20March%202018.
pdf

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Amrita Choudhury

CCAOI

India

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180406/d53e1013/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Apr  6 09:30:24 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 09:30:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: 9th Russian IGF #RIGF2018
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk07GN7xgo5shw3D6uyrnPYf5Z7vSLDqdQEyzjo3fWcMoQ@mail.gmail.com>

 Sorry to say this is almost over. I just caught up with it. Excellent
webcast! Hopefully there will be an archive.

​​

[image: RIGF] <http://rigf.ru/en/>Today, *Friday April 6 2018* the *9th
Russian IGF <http://rigf.ru/en/>* (RIGF2018) is taking place in Saint
Petersburg, Russia. he forum will feature sessions on information security,
regional aspects of internet governance, international cooperation and
technological innovations. Experts from Russia, China, the US and European
countries will talk about who should be playing a more active role in
global internet governance, and what can be done to engage new
stakeholders. The event is hosted by Coordination Center for TLD .RU/.РФ
and supported by ICANN, ISOC, RIPE NCC, APTLD and The Technical Center of
Internet. Cybersecurity partner of the Forum – Kaspersky Lab. A live webcast
<http://rigf.ru/en/press/?p=trans> is available in Russian and English. (No
captions). Saint Petersburg is UTC+3 = 7 hours ahead of NYC.

*What: 9th Russian IGF*
*Where: Saint Petersburg*
*When: Friday April 6 2018*
*Agenda: http://rigf.ru/en/prog/?p=prog <http://rigf.ru/en/prog/?p=prog>*
*Webcast: http://rigf.ru/en/press/?p=trans
<http://rigf.ru/en/press/?p=trans>*
*Twitter: #RIGF2018
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/rigf2018?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10041#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10041#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10041 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10041>*






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180406/ab7f1088/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Sun Apr  8 11:59:11 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 11:59:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: GIP Digital Watch Briefing - Internet
 governance in March 2018 @DiplomacyEdu
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1=2yXcyewxL3D2hJ73U8f3_1KQo51rbUHZZoqa3tnHNg@mail.gmail.com>

 ​​About to begin.


​​


[image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/gipdw02318>On
the last Tuesday of every month, the *Geneva Internet Platform (GIP)
Digital Watch <https://dig.watch/>* Internet governance briefings provide a
‘zoomed-out’ update of the major global IG and digital policy developments.
Today, *Sunday April 8 2018* at *Noon EDT* (16:00 UTC) the *Internet
Society Livestream Channe*l
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/gipdw02318> will present an edited
version of last months update. March was packed with new developments. The
Cambridge Analytica’s scandal placed Facebook’s practices under intense
scrutiny, raising questions on the responsibility of the Internet industry.
The European Commission presented proposals for digital tax reform, while
authorities in the USA are investigating a fatal accident involving a
self-driving car, as new investment and milestones in artificial
intelligence are recorded around the world. What were the main Internet
governance updates in March, and how will they shape future developments?
What can we expect in April?

*View on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/gipdw02318
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/gipdw02318>*

*Presenters*:
Stephanie Borg Psaila – Digital Policy Director, DiploFoundation
Jovan Kurbalija – Founding Director, DiploFoundation

*Online Moderator*
Roxana Radu – GIP Manager, Internet Governance Associate, Diplo Foundation.

*Regional Updates* – introduced by Andrijana Gavrilovic
Amrita Choudury – Asia Pacific
Claudio Lucena – Latin America
Wanda Perez – Caribbean
Grace Mutung’u – Africa


*More info: https://dig.watch/briefing-mar18
<https://dig.watch/briefing-mar18>Twitter: #theGIP
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/thegip?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10054#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10054#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10054 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10054>*






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180408/2bbea99d/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Sun Apr  8 19:20:17 2018
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Yosem Companys (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 16:20:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] Help Puerto Rico use tech for social good
Message-ID: <CANhci9H=40kvRL5jVunoKogpRUWG_Kfo4-FfsBAEg=JdUS6+TA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends and colleagues,

   - How should the Puerto Rican government use technology to improve
   quality of life and socioeconomic development, especially in the poorest
   and most vulnerable communities?

I would appreciate your emailing me as soon as possible one-sentence
proposed actions in the format of "Do X with Y to achieve Z." Feel free to
share links to any case studies or articles that may show their successful
implementation elsewhere.

Your proposed actions could apply to any societal sector including and not
limited to:

   - Accountability;
   - Affordable access to Internet, Web, mobile, or mesh, among others;
   - Agriculture;
   - Disaster relief;
   - Economic growth and development;
   - Education and training, whether primary, secondary, higher education,
   vocational, or online;
   - Entrepreneurship;
   - Environment;
   - Food;
   - Health;
   - Housing that's affordable but can resist storms;
   - Jobs;
   - Manufacturing;
   - Open data;
   - Open governance;
   - Pharma/Biotech;
   - Privacy;
   - Public safety;
   - Security, physical or cyber;
   - Transportation; and,
   - Water.

Please share with your closest 1-million friends, post on all your social
media accounts, or email to all your other lists.

I truly appreciate your help.

Thanks,
Yosem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180408/206bf29b/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Apr  9 08:23:01 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:23:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Does the UN Want to Take Over the
 Internet?
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2Tm6Wi-3RRY_8j_Czrsm5uk9kAdx8p_FGJ_BmYuprg7Q@mail.gmail.com>

 This panel coincided with the ISOC DC/ AU IoT Governance Symposium
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/iotgov>, so many, including me, may
have missed it.  I have massaged some rather dodgy audio and given the
captions the once over so it's a good watch. Our experts are at ease with
the Senate crowd, Ted Cruz nowhere to be seen. .


​​


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rstreet>Today,* Monday
April 9 2018* at *9am EDT* (13:00 UTC) the *Internet Society Livestream
Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/>* will webcast *R Street
Institute <http://www.rstreet.org/>*‘s panel *Does the UN Want to Take Over
the Internet?
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/does-the-un-want-to-take-over-the-internet-tickets-44340400331#>*
 which was held at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington DC on
March 30 2018. The *ITU’s Plenipotentiary Conference
<https://www.itu.int/web/pp-18/en/>* this fall will bring the spotlight
back to Internet governance. How will the ITU affect American interests in
the future? How do the IANA transition and recent ICANN decisions influence
the diplomatic landscape? Panelists: *Milton Mueller*: Professor at Georgia
Institute of Technology School of Public Policy; Director Internet
Governance Project; *Fiona Alexander*: Associate Administrator of Office of
International Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration; *Larry Strickling*: Executive Director, Collaborative Gove.
Moderator: *Joe Kane*, R Street Institute.

*Watch on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rstreet
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rstreet> (open captions)*
*Twitter: @RSI + ITU
<https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%40RSI%20ITU&src=typd>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10057#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10057#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10057 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10057>*






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180409/a81a97e7/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Apr 11 16:20:14 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 16:20:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Democracia=2C_Transparenc?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ia_e_Internet_en_las_Am=C3=A9ricas_=40isocpe?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0JA=fNVLddoi-OprkAit0p6mHHkH8=GPNDn3GgGXhRbA@mail.gmail.com>

 As you might surmise, today's proceedings will be in Spanish!.Lima is one
hour ahead of NYC, so this starts at 5pm EDT.

​​


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DemocraciaDigital>Hoy, *miércoles
11 de abril de 2018*, el *Capítulo Perú de Internet Society
<https://www.facebook.com/isocpe/>* (ISOC PE) será la sede de  *Democracia,
Transparencia e Internet en las Américas*
<http://democraciadigital.pe/blogs/programa-foro-alto-nivel-foro-alto-nivel-democracia-transparencia-e-internet-las-americas>
 en Lima, Perú. Al Foro de Alto Nivel acudirán los representantes y
delegaciones de las Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil (OSC) de los
Estados miembros de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). Tiene
por objetivo incidir en la Agenda de la VIII Cumbre de las Américas
respecto de la importancia que cumplen Internet y las TIC´s en el
fortalecimiento de la democracia. Durante el Foro se enfatizarán los temas
referidos a libertad de expresión online, transparencia, datos abiertos y
participación ciudadana.

*Qué:* Democracia, Transparencia e Internet en las Américas
<http://democraciadigital.pe/blogs/programa-foro-alto-nivel-foro-alto-nivel-democracia-transparencia-e-internet-las-americas>
*Dónde:* Lima, Perú
*Cuando:* Miércoles 11 de abril de 2018 4pm PET (21:00 UTC)
*Agenda:* http://bit.ly/2GT1ZAB
*Transmisión web*: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DemocraciaDigital/
 (sin subtítulos)
*Participantes:*:

   *Alberto Rodríguez*, Director del Banco Mundial para Bolivia, Chile,
   Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela
   *Edison Lanza*, Relator Especial para la Libertad de Expresión de la
   Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH)
   *Elaine Ford*, Directora D&D Internacional – Democracia Digital
   *Elizabeth Salazar*, Periodista de Investigación de Ojo Público
   *Esmeralda Arosemena*, Comisionada Comisión Interamericana de Derechos
   Humanos
   *Gina Romero*, Secretaria Ejecutiva de la Red para la Democracia (RedLad)
   *Gino Costa*, Congresista de la República del Perú
   *José Ugaz*, ex Presidente Transparencia Internacional y ex Procurador
   Anticorrupción
   *Magaly Robalin*o, Representante de Unesco en el Perú
   *Martiza Agüero*, Representante de Internet Society (ISOC)-Perú
   *Marta Gaba*, Ciberactivista y Directora de RR.II. de Transparencia
   Electoral
   *Michael Camilleri*, Director del Programa de Estado de Derecho, Diálogo
   Interamericano
   *Pedro Less*, Director de Políticas Públicas de Google para América
   Latina
   *Sebastian Grundberger*, Representante de la Fundación Konrad Adenauer
   en el Perú

*Twitter:* #DemocraciaDigital <http://bit.ly/2IvepyH> | #CumbreAmericas
<http://bit.ly/2IvjeIt>

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10063#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10063#comments>


*​Permalink*

*http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10063 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10063>*






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20180411/efd9fe76/attachment.htm>