[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC involvement ICANN /Internet Governance Initiatives (1): 1Net

[Jorge Amodio]

> On the 1net discussions, I just would like to make a quick observation. Since Bali, the iStar coalition has framed the debate as "let's do something to preserve the current model, otherwise governments will control the Internet". This idea has been repeated on the list as this multistakeholder x intergov tension you mentioned. Nevertheless, I think that it would be important to also include on the dominant narrative three points

I don't think that the intent is to "preserve" the current model but have a space for an open discussion to have a better understanding on where each sector stands on different issues and where and how we can make improvements for a better Internet.

> a) The IG regime is not perfect. It had disfunctionalities pointed out even before Snowden. So what we should do is not to conservatively try to preserve the regime, but to creatively try to improve it; 

No regime is perfect, and IG is way far from that, it is not even clear yet what is IG and who is IG, and as I said many times in different list we must move on from the snowdenia hysteria.

> b) The danger of dominance from governments does not necessarily come from UN fora with potentially enlarged competences. There is a worse problem of securitization of the agenda coupled with massive and pervasive surveillance. The US is doing it efficiently, other countries would like to have the same capabilities. Maybe we are barking at the wrong tree when we focus so much attention at things like plenipot. I am not saying it is not important, but a wiser allocation of energy is maybe needed; 

Pervasive surveillance is just one issue and it is not strictly related to the Internet or/and IG.

> c) There is too much focus on the problem of "intergovernamentalization" of the regime, but not much attention on its privatization. De facto regulation of our lives (our privacy, our freedom of expression) by private companies is a problem. Opaque private agreements between network operators and their impact on costs is a problem. Opaque development of standards (which embody policy decisions) is a problem. Increasingly proprietary standards and lack of interoperability as well. So I am not impressed that many private actors are resistant to changes. Maybe non-comercial actors could bring more balance to debate: too much govts can be bad, but too much privatization may be negative as well.

I don't see the "de facto regulation" of my life by any private company. Agreements between operators are private commercial agreements executed under national and international laws where applicable.

"Opaque development of standards" ?? Which standards and by whom ?

What "lack of interoperability" ?

From who's agenda are you taking all these statements ?

Regards
Jorge