input to WSIS+20 comments sought
Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective -- *How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians.* *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential. Background: WSIS2003 (World Summit on the Information Society) was an intergovernmental conference where other groups had access and observer status which was a step forward at the time. It established a working group on internet governance (WGIG) which was multistakeholder and which developed the following definition -- "Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (2006) How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal? I would welcome any input. Marita
Hi Marita With the main principles under the internet neutrality and other rules like Human Rights, we came so far with a huge development. So big that it became our society itself with all good and bad things. Do we have intention to reduce freedom of expression, internet neutrality in exchange of anything? From my view I don’t. Like in our physical society, good changes take time - this is a learning curve, we are in the beginning of the process, like the initial points of civilization and to change the basic principles always led to disasters… I will defend building over the main principles and making “baby steps” for new rules, with the prerogative to go back if the rules shown not expected results. Lots of kisses Going to airport to get my plane to Cancun. Safe trip and see you there. Vanda Scartezini DNS WOMEN Sao Paulo, Brazil + 55 11 98181-1464 vanda@scartezini.org From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, 9 March 2023 15:38 To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] input to WSIS+20 comments sought Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective -- How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians. *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential. Background: WSIS2003 (World Summit on the Information Society) was an intergovernmental conference where other groups had access and observer status which was a step forward at the time. It established a working group on internet governance (WGIG) which was multistakeholder and which developed the following definition -- "Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (2006) How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal? I would welcome any input. Marita
This is a huge subject, one I often discuss with Evan and others that requires a lot more inquiry for distillation of the cogent arguments you will need for the 10 minutes you'll get to deliver. But be that as it is, a big +1 to Vanda's. Any evolution of this definition of IG I can see is a retrenchment. I would advise fiddling with the aspirational goals even as we recognize we are far from the end game. IMHO - and thinking like a politician - it was not meant to be realized on a 'now' timeline. The struggle I see is to strike a balance between the influence and impact of the several named groups of actors in the IG framework. As of now, it is the pluperfect Animal Farm existence; 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others'. Participation represents promoting ideas. Equitable promotion means access to all channels. When it comes to resources and with respect to participation, the ensure representation is grossly under-resourced resulting in dimmed voices and impact. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 15:04, Vanda Scartezini via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Hi Marita
With the main principles under the internet neutrality and other rules like Human Rights, we came so far with a huge development. So big that it became our society itself with all good and bad things.
Do we have intention to reduce freedom of expression, internet neutrality in exchange of anything? From my view I don’t.
Like in our physical society, good changes take time - this is a learning curve, we are in the beginning of the process, like the initial points of civilization and to change the basic principles always led to disasters…
I will defend building over the main principles and making “baby steps” for new rules, with the prerogative to go back if the rules shown not expected results.
Lots of kisses
Going to airport to get my plane to Cancun. Safe trip and see you there.
*Vanda Scartezini *
*DNS WOMEN *
*Sao Paulo, Brazil*
*+ 55 11 98181-1464*
*vanda@scartezini.org <vanda@scartezini.org>*
*From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, 9 March 2023 15:38 *To: *NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] input to WSIS+20 comments sought
Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective --
*How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians.* *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential.
Background: WSIS2003 (World Summit on the Information Society) was an intergovernmental conference where other groups had access and observer status which was a step forward at the time. It established a working group on internet governance (WGIG) which was multistakeholder and which developed the following definition --
"Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (2006)
How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal?
I would welcome any input.
Marita _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
With regard to principles, I like to start with a foundation, vague and ambiguous as it may be, to set a general direction. Below is what I have been proposing for a long time... (By-the-way, this formulation finds its distant ancestor in the US "Hush-a-Phone" case, a rather significant, and somewhat amusing, case that was the start of a sequence that led to the opening of telco circuits to other sues, such as the ARPAnet and Internet.) First Law of the Internet + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html The general shape of this principle is that one has a freedom to use the net as they please. But that pleasure is subject to the rather cloudy boundary of "public detriment". However, the principle places the burden of proving that "public detriment" on those who complain. And the level and evidence of that proof has to be high, not merely a bald assertion. --karl--
Sympathetic to this Karl. But ... Check the UK's Online Safety Bill. For "public detriment" we should now read the use of the terms "harms" and "safety". Both are subjectively assessed and at high risk of politicisation. They are also being bandied about to be used for prevention of harms. This is at the root of argument to make use of encryption too risky on communications providers bottom lines. C Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> writes:
With regard to principles, I like to start with a foundation, vague and ambiguous as it may be, to set a general direction.
Below is what I have been proposing for a long time...
(By-the-way, this formulation finds its distant ancestor in the US "Hush-a-Phone" case, a rather significant, and somewhat amusing, case that was the start of a sequence that led to the opening of telco circuits to other sues, such as the ARPAnet and Internet.)
First Law of the Internet
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html
The general shape of this principle is that one has a freedom to use the net as they please. But that pleasure is subject to the rather cloudy boundary of "public detriment". However, the principle places the burden of proving that "public detriment" on those who complain. And the level and evidence of that proof has to be high, not merely a bald assertion.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- christian de larrinaga https://firsthand.net
The state is formed by the (no doubt fictional but meaningful) social contract whereby individuals agree to give up some of their liberties for the sake of collective social living. The collective decisions needed for such living are enforced by the state which has a monopoly over use of legitimate coercive force in this regard. Constitutions based on fundamental rights are supposed to ensure that any such curtailing of liberties for collective sake is justified by cannons of legitimacy, necessity, proportionality, and minimalism (tested on the ground that no other less intrusive mean was available towards the same end) . Karl is stating more or less the same in terms of the internet and law.... Which is a great starting principle, and already presupposed in constitutional democracies, but the real problems all lie downstream in interpretations and implementation, by law makers, courts, executive, and so on .. parminder On 10/03/23 15:36, christian de larrinaga via At-Large wrote:
Sympathetic to this Karl. But ...
Check the UK's Online Safety Bill. For "public detriment" we should now read the use of the terms "harms" and "safety". Both are subjectively assessed and at high risk of politicisation. They are also being bandied about to be used for prevention of harms. This is at the root of argument to make use of encryption too risky on communications providers bottom lines.
C
Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> writes:
With regard to principles, I like to start with a foundation, vague and ambiguous as it may be, to set a general direction.
Below is what I have been proposing for a long time...
(By-the-way, this formulation finds its distant ancestor in the US "Hush-a-Phone" case, a rather significant, and somewhat amusing, case that was the start of a sequence that led to the opening of telco circuits to other sues, such as the ARPAnet and Internet.)
First Law of the Internet
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html
The general shape of this principle is that one has a freedom to use the net as they please. But that pleasure is subject to the rather cloudy boundary of "public detriment". However, the principle places the burden of proving that "public detriment" on those who complain. And the level and evidence of that proof has to be high, not merely a bald assertion.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
The problem is deeper than that. The implication of what OSB is pushing is that nobody has a right to security online. This is done in the name of "Safety". C parminder via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> writes:
The state is formed by the (no doubt fictional but meaningful) social contract whereby individuals agree to give up some of their liberties for the sake of collective social living. The collective decisions needed for such living are enforced by the state which has a monopoly over use of legitimate coercive force in this regard. Constitutions based on fundamental rights are supposed to ensure that any such curtailing of liberties for collective sake is justified by cannons of legitimacy, necessity, proportionality, and minimalism (tested on the ground that no other less intrusive mean was available towards the same end) .
Karl is stating more or less the same in terms of the internet and law....
Which is a great starting principle, and already presupposed in constitutional democracies, but the real problems all lie downstream in interpretations and implementation, by law makers, courts, executive, and so on ..
parminder
On 10/03/23 15:36, christian de larrinaga via At-Large wrote:
Sympathetic to this Karl. But ...
Check the UK's Online Safety Bill. For "public detriment" we should now read the use of the terms "harms" and "safety". Both are subjectively assessed and at high risk of politicisation. They are also being bandied about to be used for prevention of harms. This is at the root of argument to make use of encryption too risky on communications providers bottom lines.
C
Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> writes:
With regard to principles, I like to start with a foundation, vague and ambiguous as it may be, to set a general direction.
Below is what I have been proposing for a long time...
(By-the-way, this formulation finds its distant ancestor in the US "Hush-a-Phone" case, a rather significant, and somewhat amusing, case that was the start of a sequence that led to the opening of telco circuits to other sues, such as the ARPAnet and Internet.)
First Law of the Internet
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html
The general shape of this principle is that one has a freedom to use the net as they please. But that pleasure is subject to the rather cloudy boundary of "public detriment". However, the principle places the burden of proving that "public detriment" on those who complain. And the level and evidence of that proof has to be high, not merely a bald assertion.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- christian de larrinaga https://firsthand.net
Parminder, I would modify that slightly to "Ideally the state is formed by the (no doubt fictional but meaningful) social contract whereby individuals agree to give up some of their liberties for the sake of collective social living." Unfortunately, there are numerous cases where the state was formed by whoever could bring to bear enough power to force other individuals to accept the "leaders". As you note, this presupposes a particular form of government. But, for the moment, not one which is anything like universal. Therefore, what constitutes Karl's "public harm" is subject to being defined locally by a very small group which is not at all representative of the population. Thus, as a practical matter, we should have something fairly specific as to what constitutes a public harm -- something that cannot be readily modified to mean "inconvenient to the existing government." Bill Jouris On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 03:53:00 AM PST, parminder via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: The state is formed by the (no doubt fictional but meaningful) social contract whereby individuals agree to give up some of their liberties for the sake of collective social living. The collective decisions needed for such living are enforced by the state which has a monopoly over use of legitimate coercive force in this regard. Constitutions based on fundamental rights are supposed to ensure that any such curtailing of liberties for collective sake is justified by cannons of legitimacy, necessity, proportionality, and minimalism (tested on the ground that no other less intrusive mean was available towards the same end) . Karl is stating more or less the same in terms of the internet and law.... Which is a great starting principle, and already presupposed in constitutional democracies, but the real problems all lie downstream in interpretations and implementation, by law makers, courts, executive, and so on .. parminder On 10/03/23 15:36, christian de larrinaga via At-Large wrote:
Sympathetic to this Karl. But ...
Check the UK's Online Safety Bill. For "public detriment" we should now read the use of the terms "harms" and "safety". Both are subjectively assessed and at high risk of politicisation. They are also being bandied about to be used for prevention of harms. This is at the root of argument to make use of encryption too risky on communications providers bottom lines.
C
Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> writes:
With regard to principles, I like to start with a foundation, vague and ambiguous as it may be, to set a general direction.
Below is what I have been proposing for a long time...
(By-the-way, this formulation finds its distant ancestor in the US "Hush-a-Phone" case, a rather significant, and somewhat amusing, case that was the start of a sequence that led to the opening of telco circuits to other sues, such as the ARPAnet and Internet.)
First Law of the Internet
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html
The general shape of this principle is that one has a freedom to use the net as they please. But that pleasure is subject to the rather cloudy boundary of "public detriment". However, the principle places the burden of proving that "public detriment" on those who complain. And the level and evidence of that proof has to be high, not merely a bald assertion.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I wonder if this sort of discussion will ever get past the sort of broad principles about the role of government no doubt almost all similarly debated when drafting the Magna Carta in 1215. For example what did the ITU founding documents (1865) say about this sort of multilateral arrangement? Surely, at least in the abstract, they dealt with similar issues. etc. P.S. I know, some of you dislike the ITU and will leap to express your fidelity to that antipathy upon its mention. Which begs the question as to whether they had to agree similar issues. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:08 AM Barry Shein via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: P.S. I know, some of you dislike the ITU and will leap to express your
fidelity to that antipathy upon its mention. Which begs the question as to whether they had to agree similar issues.
After last year's election, I'm not sure that the ITU is quite the threat that it used to be to the values expressed in these forums. At very least, its processes ought no longer to be dismissed out of hand as an alternative to the model exhibited by ICANN's unabashed industry capture. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
I agree that there are some really tricky devils in the details. And I agree that definitions are where a lot of those devils like to live. I see governance (and many other aspects of life) as having one of two basic modes of operation: 1) There is governance that acts through what I call the prime mover theory: A great deal of effort is expended to create a compendious and almost fractally detailed policy or law or whatever noun we want to use. This is a method often found in things like building codes where the field is fairly mature and this kind of detailed rulemaking can be done fairly well. 2) And then there is governance by positive muddling. This is best for when we just kinda know the rough direction we want to go - as Parminder puts it, the "constitutional" approach - and then as we go forth we end up banging into situations and making adjustments and adding provisos. This is kind of how the common law system of case law works. My sense is that we would be better served by moving forward via positive muddling - we set a general direction (such as with the "First Law of the Internet") and then start decorating it as we go forth and bang into real situations. One of the things that I like about the muddling-forward approach is that it often puts off some hard choices until a tomorrow that may never come. And yes we will reach tension points, like privacy/encryption vs law enforcement. There's probably never going to be a stable balance point there, and it may be best to let the policy adopt, and adopt again, and then again to the changes in social and political winds. Here in the US I've kind of lost faith in the notion that we policy or law ratchets ever forward and ever better - our supreme court (I no longer honor it with capitalization of its name) is in an unprincipled process of throwing out nearly a century of law. I would anticipate those kind of swings in Internet policy, at least for a long period of time. --karl-- On 3/10/23 2:06 AM, christian de larrinaga wrote:
Sympathetic to this Karl. But ...
Check the UK's Online Safety Bill. For "public detriment" we should now read the use of the terms "harms" and "safety". Both are subjectively assessed and at high risk of politicisation. They are also being bandied about to be used for prevention of harms. This is at the root of argument to make use of encryption too risky on communications providers bottom lines.
C
Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> writes:
With regard to principles, I like to start with a foundation, vague and ambiguous as it may be, to set a general direction.
Below is what I have been proposing for a long time...
(By-the-way, this formulation finds its distant ancestor in the US "Hush-a-Phone" case, a rather significant, and somewhat amusing, case that was the start of a sequence that led to the opening of telco circuits to other sues, such as the ARPAnet and Internet.)
First Law of the Internet
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html
The general shape of this principle is that one has a freedom to use the net as they please. But that pleasure is subject to the rather cloudy boundary of "public detriment". However, the principle places the burden of proving that "public detriment" on those who complain. And the level and evidence of that proof has to be high, not merely a bald assertion.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
That's very thoughtful and thorough. But just an observation on your useful bifurcation. Muddling through requires a social consensus (on what is acceptable practice) and the basis for that is breaking down. The UK has made a long term virtue of muddling through as a core way to handle strategic governance but it is under very serious strain because unwritten rules that underpin this have been disastrously flouted. The alternative top down governance model largely sites outside national democratic institutions and is doing rather well for itself if you see what BIS are saying about carving up crypto and WIPO carving up "streaming" content just now. They are not alone. They openly admit what they "recommend" becomes law in the most important economies. The question then for citizens is to ponder what is the role of a Parliament other than make those laws and Supreme Courts to enforce them? C Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> writes:
I agree that there are some really tricky devils in the details.
And I agree that definitions are where a lot of those devils like to live.
I see governance (and many other aspects of life) as having one of two basic modes of operation:
1) There is governance that acts through what I call the prime mover theory: A great deal of effort is expended to create a compendious and almost fractally detailed policy or law or whatever noun we want to use. This is a method often found in things like building codes where the field is fairly mature and this kind of detailed rulemaking can be done fairly well.
2) And then there is governance by positive muddling. This is best for when we just kinda know the rough direction we want to go - as Parminder puts it, the "constitutional" approach - and then as we go forth we end up banging into situations and making adjustments and adding provisos. This is kind of how the common law system of case law works.
My sense is that we would be better served by moving forward via positive muddling - we set a general direction (such as with the "First Law of the Internet") and then start decorating it as we go forth and bang into real situations.
One of the things that I like about the muddling-forward approach is that it often puts off some hard choices until a tomorrow that may never come.
And yes we will reach tension points, like privacy/encryption vs law enforcement. There's probably never going to be a stable balance point there, and it may be best to let the policy adopt, and adopt again, and then again to the changes in social and political winds.
Here in the US I've kind of lost faith in the notion that we policy or law ratchets ever forward and ever better - our supreme court (I no longer honor it with capitalization of its name) is in an unprincipled process of throwing out nearly a century of law. I would anticipate those kind of swings in Internet policy, at least for a long period of time.
--karl--
On 3/10/23 2:06 AM, christian de larrinaga wrote:
Sympathetic to this Karl. But ...
Check the UK's Online Safety Bill. For "public detriment" we should now read the use of the terms "harms" and "safety". Both are subjectively assessed and at high risk of politicisation. They are also being bandied about to be used for prevention of harms. This is at the root of argument to make use of encryption too risky on communications providers bottom lines.
C
Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> writes:
With regard to principles, I like to start with a foundation, vague and ambiguous as it may be, to set a general direction.
Below is what I have been proposing for a long time...
(By-the-way, this formulation finds its distant ancestor in the US "Hush-a-Phone" case, a rather significant, and somewhat amusing, case that was the start of a sequence that led to the opening of telco circuits to other sues, such as the ARPAnet and Internet.)
First Law of the Internet
+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
- The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use.
- Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment.
- The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity.
https://www.cavebear.com/old_cbblog/000059.html
The general shape of this principle is that one has a freedom to use the net as they please. But that pleasure is subject to the rather cloudy boundary of "public detriment". However, the principle places the burden of proving that "public detriment" on those who complain. And the level and evidence of that proof has to be high, not merely a bald assertion.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- christian de larrinaga https://firsthand.net
Dear Marita, I don't think that a quick-and-dirty email consultation on the eve of an ICANN F2F, collecting some knee-jerk snippets, is the way to go towards answering this huge question. Enemy as I am of process bloat let me propose that we approach this with a bit more structure. Happy to contribute. Alejandro Pisanty On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:38 PM Marita Moll via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective --
*How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians.* *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential.
Background: WSIS2003 (World Summit on the Information Society) was an intergovernmental conference where other groups had access and observer status which was a step forward at the time. It established a working group on internet governance (WGIG) which was multistakeholder and which developed the following definition --
"Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (2006)
How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal?
I would welcome any input.
Marita _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alejandro, this time I don't agree with you. I think Vanda exposes something interesting. If there is no commitment, I think that can be said, simply. Whenever we leave an empty space, it is occupied by others. Best Alberto De: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Alejandro Pisanty via At-Large Enviado el: jueves, 09 de marzo de 2023 17:49 Para: Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> CC: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] input to WSIS+20 comments sought Dear Marita, I don't think that a quick-and-dirty email consultation on the eve of an ICANN F2F, collecting some knee-jerk snippets, is the way to go towards answering this huge question. Enemy as I am of process bloat let me propose that we approach this with a bit more structure. Happy to contribute. Alejandro Pisanty On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:38 PM Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > wrote: Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective -- How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians. *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential. Background: WSIS2003 (World Summit on the Information Society) was an intergovernmental conference where other groups had access and observer status which was a step forward at the time. It established a working group on internet governance (WGIG) which was multistakeholder and which developed the following definition -- "Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (2006) How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal? I would welcome any input. Marita _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hello Marita I hope this helps. It is wordy, much longer than 3 minutes, but I didn’t have time to pare it down. Good luck with the forum.
How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians.
By Loris Taylor, President & CEO, Native Public Media The protection of the global internet is crucial for the well-being of communities and societies around the world. To ensure that the internet remains a safe and open space for all, communities must come together and formulate a long-term vision to guide politicians in their decision-making. To protect the global internet, communities must first understand the essential elements. According to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), these include access, openness, security, diversity, and innovation. Access refers to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to use and benefit from the internet, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Openness refers to the principle that the internet should be a free and open space for all, where ideas can be shared and exchanged without censorship or discrimination. Security involves protecting users and their data from cyber threats and attacks. At the same time, diversity emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the internet reflects its users' cultural, linguistic, and social diversity. Finally, innovation involves promoting new technologies and applications that can enhance the value and impact of the internet for everyone. To formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians, communities must engage in a multilateral process such as WSIS+20. This UN process provides a platform for government, civil society, and the private sector stakeholders to come together and discuss issues related to the internet and its governance. By working with political allies within this process, communities can build consensus around a shared vision for the internet that reflects the essential elements of access, openness, security, diversity, and innovation; and guide policy-making at the national and international levels, ensuring that the internet remains a vital tool for social, economic, and political progress in the years to come.
How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal?
The definition of what is essential to protect the global internet will likely evolve as technology, society, and geopolitical conditions change over time. For example, as new technologies such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things become more prevalent, there may be a need to address issues related to their impact on the internet and its users. Similarly, as society becomes more aware of the social and environmental implications of technology, there may be a need to include sustainability and ethical considerations in defining what is essential to protect the internet. Realizing the goal of protecting the global internet will require various resources, including technical expertise, financial resources, and political will. Technical expertise is needed to develop and implement technologies and standards that can enhance the security, openness, and accessibility of the internet. Financial resources are necessary to support research and development, infrastructure investment, and capacity-building initiatives that bridge the digital divide and ensure everyone has internet access. Political will is needed to enable the internet to thrive through policies and regulations protecting users' rights, promoting innovation, and fostering collaboration across different sectors and stakeholders. In addition to these resources, engaging a wide range of stakeholders in protecting the global internet will be essential, including governments, civil society organizations, academia, the private sector, and individual users. By bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise, it is possible to build a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of what is essential to protect the internet and to develop strategies and solutions that can be effective in a rapidly changing world. Best, Loris Taylor President & CEO Native Public Media www.nativepublicmedia.org
On Mar 9, 2023, at 11:37 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective --
How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians. *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential.
Background: WSIS2003 (World Summit on the Information Society) was an intergovernmental conference where other groups had access and observer status which was a step forward at the time. It established a working group on internet governance (WGIG) which was multistakeholder and which developed the following definition --
"Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (2006)
How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal?
I would welcome any input.
Marita
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Mar 9, 2023, at 10:37 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective -- How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians. *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential…. I would welcome any input. Marita
Addressing a similar WSIS question 18 years ago, I contributed the following to the online discussion. I would submit that all 4 scenarios still remain dynamically in play …. and so developing a long-term vision that works for politicians depends on forming alliances with politicians committed to radical change in governance. GG
Hello. Just wanted to thank all of those who contributed helpful ideas to this thread. I have only 3 minutes in the public forum which is mostly designed as an awareness raising exercise. So I will be very general. But this is only the beginning of the conversation and your comments will remain in the file for future discussions. Thanks again Marita On 2023-03-09 1:37 p.m., Marita Moll via At-Large wrote:
Colleagues, I will have 3 minutes in the WSIS+20 public forum on Wednesday to address the following question from an enduser perspective --
*How does your community explain what are the essentials to protect the global internet and to formulate a long-term vision that works for politicians.* *Note that WSIS+20 is a UN process which is multilateral -- so working with political allies would be essential.
Background: WSIS2003 (World Summit on the Information Society) was an intergovernmental conference where other groups had access and observer status which was a step forward at the time. It established a working group on internet governance (WGIG) which was multistakeholder and which developed the following definition --
"Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." This led to the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (2006)
How would we see this definition evolving and what kinds of resources are needed to realize that goal?
I would welcome any input.
Marita
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (13)
-
alberto＠soto.net.ar -
Alejandro Pisanty -
Bill Jouris -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Carlton Samuels -
christian de larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Graham -
Karl Auerbach -
Loris Taylor -
Marita Moll -
parminder -
Vanda Scartezini