<div>I broadly agree with Olivier's response to Milton's blog entry on the issue.</div><div><br></div><a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/13/what-really-happened-in-dubai/#comment-3757">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/13/what-really-happened-in-dubai/#comment-3757</a><br>
<div><br></div><div> The linkage of the resolution to the less-publicized side work on creating international standards for Deep Packet Inspection is important, arguably critical.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps the most damning part of the treaty process was the concept of asserting state "rights" as equivalent or superior to human rights. Sure, every country is sovereign, but countries -- like corporations -- (IMO) are not entitled to treaty-defined rights as people are. Indeed, assertions of human rights are usually done to counter imposition of state "rights" over its citizenry.</div>
<div><br></div><div>ICANN has dodged a bullet here, but the outcome must not be seen as an approval (or non-rejection) of "business as usual". The ALAC "R3" paper, started almost a year ago, seeks to make ICANN more responsive and better able to address the challenges made to it in Dubai. I welcome NCSG participation in it, as indicated by Mary's mention in another email thread here. I was delighted with <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Multi-stakeholder+process+from+the+NGO+perspective+Toronto+2012-10-17">the beginning of the NPOC engagement with it in Toronto</a> and look forward to NCUC's participation as well.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Evan</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 December 2012 10:05, Alex Gakuru <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gakuru@gmail.com" target="_blank">gakuru@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Allow me to add something I said somewhere last week causing some laughter, ".. starting with demilitarizing the Internet." <br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Alex Gakuru <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gakuru@gmail.com" target="_blank">gakuru@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Eloquently put! The real problem is not
nor has been the Internet per se but its unprecedented societal order
transforming success – instantaneousness, equally placing everyone
on the same platform. Then the publics/participants responding by
transferring their most varied motives online resulting in ages old
societal conflicts and humans interaction tensions replaying online.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Given your illustrated cultural,
traditional, religious, human nature, infrastructural instruments,
among other, interactions challenges, how/can these tensions be
eradicated such that when everyone connected is all-smiles online? Or
yet another illuminating case for global attitudes overhaul ;-)</p><div><div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Marc Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org" target="_blank">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
My problem is that no matter how benign a treaty might sound in the beginning it would lead to the creation of an infrastructure to allow enforcement. Once you have an international infrastructure of control who is to say the rules might change? So something might start out as the society for the protection of cute kittens organizing to stop child porn and end up with the thought police installing chips in your brain.<br>
<br>
And you can imagine where this would go when it comes to "religiously offensive" materials sent across the internet. There are many countries where not believing in God caries the death penalty, as well as believing in God the wrong way. I can imagine what would happen between Christians and Muslims on an Internet with a central control infrastructure. There was a story recently where a man who was a non-believer determined that a crying statue of the Virgin Mary was caused by a leaky sewer pipe and he's being prosecuted for it. Imagine what a threat it would be to realists if those views could be enforced across international borders.<br>
<br>
And what about uprisings? The Arab Spring was organized online. Would we be obligated to censor the cries of the oppressed and tortured because of treaty obligations of the oppressing country?<br>
<br>
The bottom line for me is that some criminality is the price we pay for freedom and it's worth it. Once you put in an infrastructure to stop the bad guys then that infrastructure can, and most certainly will, be used against the rest of us. So I support our resistance to any treaty or domestic law to centrally control the internet.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Evan Leibovitch</div><div style="text-align:left">Toronto Canada</div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Em: evan at telly dot org</div></div><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">Sk: evanleibovitch</div></div><div style="text-align:center"><div style="text-align:left">
Tw: el56</div></div></blockquote><br>
</div>