Re: WCIT outcome?

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Fri, 04 January 2013 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670FA21F8809 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:55:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.891
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nGT2VtV1K4hF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4487B21F87ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc::14]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 090F120115; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 19:55:46 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <00fd01cdea16$c956c720$5c045560$@tndh.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:55:45 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CA56BFA0-3CA1-499D-AD13-0406F9E48D63@frobbit.se>
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjzjLc2-=4EdxwHOi21B3dOBUohYc5hhXZHL_Pk+iBBmQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net> <CAMm+LwiC0xtJU4vnGFPvAG4VKZdj7Tf3LfW0+pzwxKWTegRREw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240800cd074efd45b8@10.0.1.3> <CAMm+Lwiq+DCzXw572wKs78DG+XzYsJtwCVSPvNuVHSrT=Cr2nA@mail.gmail.com> <a06240809cd0799fee029@[10.0.1.3]> <50E29EE0.1080107@gmail.com> <50E32CAA.4040507@tana.it> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B72A8D6@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <00fd01cdea16$c956c720$5c045560$@tndh.net>
To: "ietf@ietf.org Mailing List" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: lynn.st.amour@isoc.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:55:50 -0000

On 4 jan 2013, at 01:59, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:

> Like it or not, governments are fundamentally opposed to the open nature of
> 'the Internet', and they always will be (even the 'reasonable' ones).

Because I do not think generalization is really a reasonable thing to do, and even dangerous when discussing governance issues, I disagree with this statement.

Governments want just like businesses success in whatever they do. That can in general be divided in two wishes. Short term, in the form of being re-elected (or not thrown out of their office) and long term, as in growth of the revenue of the country they govern.

They of course have pieces of their operation that belong to law enforcement agencies, but they also have those that are responsible of finding rules so that non-public sector can grow (to later increase for example tax revenue).

Because of this, I encourage people to not generalize per stakeholder group, but instead acknowledge that there are different *forces* that are orthogonal to each other, and calculating "the correct" balance between them is hard. Or rather, different people do for different reasons get different results when calculating what the for them proper balance is.

That is why I personally am against generalization that a stakeholder group have one specific view.

Specifically governments.

If when pushed to be forced to choose between two choices *all* governments wanted to have control, we would have had many more governments signing the proposed treaty that was on the table in Dubai.

Instead, when being forced to choose, they picked openness and multi stakeholder bottom up processes.

Just like what happened earlier during 2012 when in A/HRC/20/L.13 UN(*) concluded (<http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/64/51/6999c512.pdf>:

> 1. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
> 
> 2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms;
> 
> 3. Calls upon all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communications facilities in all countries;
> 
> 4. Encourages special procedures to take these issues into account within their existing mandates, as applicable;
> 
> 5. Decides to continue its consideration of the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, on the Internet and in other technologies, as well as of how the Internet can be an important tool for development and for exercising human rights, in accordance with its programme of work.

   Patrik

(*) Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay)