Dear Sala: Thanks for this very informative assessment. I share almost all your concerns and endorse your wishlist. Regarding the IXP matter. To some extent, this development will increase the hurdle to mass surveillance but it is hardly a cure. So we must not oversell it. Sure, it breaks up the current topography of global traffic movement. But that is all it does. The possibilities to monitor and inject [re/bi/multi] routing data against an IP address is endless within software defined network tools. Yesterday, it was reported that Quai d'Orsay summoned the U.S. Ambassador to France for a 'dressing down' when Le Monde reported - originating in a Snowden leak - that some millions of Frenchmen had their email addresses surveilled. The public outrage of the French is as laughable as the Captain Renard moment in Casablanca - "I'm shocked, shocked that gambling is taking place here" just as he pocketed his winnings. Even moreso that the French themselves thru their SDECE agency do it routinely, albeit, they will tell you, against assorted 'ragheads and fellow travellers', meaning 'The Other'. No outrage, they deserve that. The tendency to exceptionalism is nothing new. Yawnnnnnnn. I say again. The approach - sucking up everything, store then spend time searching for the 'nuggets' - is the optimal and most effective way to go at big data for surveillance purposes. Nobody with a lick of sense and wanting to get the job done is going to change that. And this is not likely to change, regardless of what is said. Take that from me as incontestable for logic. I think all governments will eventually take the Chinese approach; yes we do it and tell us why we should give a damn that you're upset. Check your note on Chinese reaction to the latest surveillance disclosures. They were always sure it was hypocritical! Why you think they were so willing to remain silent? Just one little quibble with interpretation of what governments - bar the US - mean when they plead for more participation in IG. I do not believe it is about improved/increased multistakeholder participation. It is moreso about increased multilateral participation unleavened by the equal presence and voice of civil society actors. Look back on the various proposals from the Brazilians, Indians etc. They really mean civil action is best restricted to national borders with state actors being the responsible voices for pronouncements for outside consumption. That is, screw international civil society action. Don't think the BRICs were asleep and didn't take note when the US delegation to the WCIT last time co-opted well-known civil society actors! Actually, come to think, it might be the unease you sensed with the US government delegation sitting with ISOC/ICANN. Maybe harmless - people tend to gravitate to people you know - but you're quite right in sensing the picture is subject to a wide swath of interpretation. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
*Update from Bali – Pre- IGF*
This year’s Pre-Internet Governance Forum which was held yesterday set the tone for this week. Today is Day 1 of the IGF! It’s finally here!!! Yesterday was like a barometer testing how stakeholders generally would be engaging in the discussions and dialogue on the diverse issues on Internet Governance.
Remote participation is available over IPv6! :)
*About Indonesia*
It was also great to hear the CTO of Telecom Indonesia give a general update on ICT and the Internet in Indonesia. By the way Indonesia is also the world’s second largest biodiversity and the fourth largest country on the earth being home for 250, 588, 688 people. If you are curious about their resource allocations visit: http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html
In 2011, Indonesia ranked 95 on the ICT Development Index, see:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2012/MIS201...
*IGF Schedule*
* *
To see today’s Schedule, visit: http://igf2013.or.id/schedule/**
* *
*Snippets from Yesterday*
* *
*High Level Leaders Meeting*
It was a great meeting for testing the mercury levels of how institutions were feeling about Internet Governance. There seemed to be consensus that there needs to be improvement when it comes to Internet Governance. The meeting was hosted by the Indonesian Government where representatives of public sector, civil society and private sector were invited.
*What I Heard*
* *
*[There were many speakers but am picking that which stood out]*
The nature of improvement is at this stage ambiguous except for the Japanese Government making calls for increased functionality of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN. Brazil’s Government representative wants more democracy on the Internet and advised the delegates that they would be hosting and Internet Governance meeting in Brazil next year. There was overwhelming consensus by governments that cyber security is critical in the wake of vulnerabilities and threats. The US Government representative pointed out those unlawful non state activities that threaten the Internet should be addressed. The Chinese Government advocated social and economic rights. APNIC CEO Paul Wilson, Chair of the Number Registry Organisation (NRO) and MAG member emphasized the need to rebuild trust and leaders to collaborate and have aggressive cooperation. Citizen’s Lab advised that there should be caution in terms of the reaction of stakeholders to recent revelations by Edward Snowden and the threats of excessive regulation by governments. Google representative said that Surveillance was nothing new and done by all and not just the US government.
Jovan Kurbalija, Director of Diplo Foundation said, “Make no mistake, Internet Governance is in crisis”. Kurbalija suggested that there are challenges and there needs to be change and empathy.
*What I Observed [How I interpreted what they were saying]*
I won’t go into all of the speakers but just some key snippets that in my view helps set the tone and context for the IGF this year.
*US*
When the US government made comments about unlawful activity by non-state actors which in my view canvasses stakeholders within the private sector such as when Google had to pay $22.5million in fines for Safari tracking. The US government has to be commended for having machinery that allows for redress when it comes to corporate surveillance. However not countries have policies and laws that enable regulators to address breaches. Google has come under fire by Australian Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand Police – Cyber Crime Unit. There are other commercial stakeholders who exploit big data for commercial purposes. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD $48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent from
2012 to 2018.
I would have preferred if the US Government representative sat next to other country representatives rather than ICANN and ISOC CEO to be less clique and more global. In diplomacy, even seating arrangements speaks volume.
*China*
They are probably relieved to have the spotlight on government surveillance shift from them to the US (tongue in cheek). They highlighted social and economic aspects of human rights over the internet. To me this is diplomatic speak for increase in access and empowering communities to build stronger IP backbones and would include things like culture such as multilingualism and diversity on the Internet in forms of expression as well as through Internationalized Domain Names.
* *
*Japan*
The suggestion to increase GAC functionality is a cry for more robust representation from governments into the policy processes. Indirectly they were saying that they are happy to have institutions carry on with their administration functions except to instill incremental changes.
*Brazil*
I am assuming that Brazil wants increased participation and to have forums more democratic. It remains unclear whether they are referring to administration or meaningful participation from other nation states and stakeholders in the coordinating bodies.
It is helpful to separate this core issue from the other notion that they alluded to in their speech and increasing local Internet Exchange points to avoid local traffic getting routed offshore and being exposed. From an end user perspective having local IXPs have a direct correlation to greater room for increasing local content, lower costs and increasing infrastructure which is in sync with building a vibrant and open internet community.
* *
*Civil Society***
It would be great for the two speakers from civil society to have invited comments from the rest of civil society as they were developing their speeches. Whilst they identified the security and vulnerabilities, I felt that they could have done more to clearly and concisely highlight the solutions. Throughout this week as, civil society engages in the various workshops, it is critical that we not only raise the issues and vulnerabilities but also suggest solutions.
Today, the IGC is meeting during lunch hour where we will discuss a few things, one of which is how we can coordinate civil society input into workshops aside from administrative matters. For those who wish to skype into the session let us know by emailing: coordinators@igcaucus.org
* *
*GigaNet*
Apparently for much of the day, there was standing room only. I attended two sessions at the Giganet where a Panelist presented a Study on Transferring Blocks and Routing Information. The other session that I attended was on Surveillance and Snowden.
*Final Thoughts and Wish List***
I am personally not worried about the future of the Internet Governance. However, I feel that we need to create a culture where we can openly discuss concerns without retreating into our caves. I find that in the 8thInternet Governance stakeholders need to zero into the core critical issues rather than skirting superficially over the issues. For me, my list is clear:
1. Meaningful participation:
a. In Policy processes, representations into various administration
b. Capacity Building
c. Multilingualism – Freedom of Expression, IDNs
2. Strengthening Integrity of National and Global Standards bodies and building trust in light of the following situations
a. Patenting things which are RFCs eg.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_applic...
b. Compromised Algorithms
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist/?utm_source=tec...
(I have been told that the issue was not the standard but the implementation of the standard)
3. Increasing Accountability and Transparency in the way things are governed and administered both on a global, regional and national scale.
4. Deliberate and Conscious Strategic Engagement on Shifting Away from Territorialism of Actors and stakeholders in Internet Governance to aggressive collaboration, coordination of resources and energy to create a robust and open internet.
5. Pursue dialogue using the Internet Governance Human Rights principles as a base for complex policy discussions.
6. Bug the MAG to arrange for a sports side event where people can just learn to relax and disagree on certain issues and not take it personally where constituencies become insulated instead of porous.
*What is your wish list?*
* *
* *
*Social Media*
As per Anriette’s email:
For everything: #IGF2013
Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D
Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR
Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC
Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS
Internet Governance Principles: #IGP _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org