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

[Marilia Maciel]

""I don't see the "de facto regulation" of my life by any private company"".
Many people do feel that Google policies impact on their privacies and that
FB vague norms to take down content affect their freedom of expression.
Maybe you dont use any of such, or have a different opinion, fair enough.
But is is definitely an issue for most.

 ""Agreements between operators are private commercial agreements executed
under national and international laws where applicable"".
There is extensive debate on cost of interconnection and extensive
literature on how current commercial arrangements discourage peering and
protect the market position of incubents. Besides, there is little
transparency on contractual agreements and little oversight. What national
and international laws? Interconnection is an unresolved issue.

""Opaque development of standards" ?? Which standards and by whom ?""
A basic principle guiding publicly relevant discussions is that they need
to be put under discussion in a way that all interested parties can
understand the implications and be engaged on the debate. One shouldn't
need to be a doctor to discuss the healthcare policy, one shouldn't need to
be an expert in transports to discuss urban mobility. One should not have
to be a technical person to discuss the public policy decisions behind
technical standards. Who is creating public policy through standards and on
behalf of whom? Your question indeed goes on the right direction.

""What "lack of interoperability" ?""
Lack of interoperability may come in many forms, for instance, on the level
of standards when they are proprietary and stifle competition, and on the
level of content and applications. Try moving your data to a FB competitor.
We are walled and our data is locked.

""From who's agenda are you taking all these statements ?""
>From my head.

Best,
Marília


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > 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
>
>
>


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140107/d5ea117d/attachment-0002.html>