willi.uebelherr en riseup.net
Mar Feb 20 02:34:03 UTC 2018
many thanks for the distribution of this link. And, of course, i have
something to say.
The first 2 sentence defined the real dilemma:
"20 years ago, Internet governance was a technical issue with some
political implications. Today, Internet governance is a key political
issue with some technical components."
I remember for the text:
Internet Fragmentation: An Overview
Vint Cerf, William Drake and you, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
"From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the
Internet’s development was that every device on the Internet should be
able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing to
But short after, you write:
"The rebalancing of power within the Internet governance ecosystem
pushes for innovative approaches to global Internet related public
policy making and for enhanced cooperation among governmental and
non-governmental stakeholders as well as for a closer collaboration
among code makers and law makers, both nationally and globally.
I think, this strategy is wrong. We have to accept the real interests.
The people on our planet like that, what you and your friends wrote in
"Internet Fragmentation". The private companies and sectors and the
state institutions and sectors don't like this.
You speak about "rebalancing of power within the Internet governance
ecosystem". It is the result of understanding of this groups, how
important is the telecommunication in form of a Internet. Therefore,
they start to dominate more and more this field.
And think about ISOC, Internet Society. It is a pure "directory board"
driven organisation. And it is clear, they go in this direction, from
where the money come. IGF (Internet Governance Forum) have more member
participation, but not really.
"The Internet governance working definition, which was adopted by the UN
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis 2005, has
singled out “governments, private sector and civil society“ as the main
stakeholders. Today, the technical academic community is seen as a
fourth key stakeholder."
I don't agree. This "technical academic community" don't exist in our
real world. That are part in all 3 groups. And you have to change the
priority: privat, governments and civil society. The governments work in
order of the private groups and this group define the acitvity space for
governments. Only the civil society can act independent. And we know,
that the civil society only have the interest for implementing your
basic principles in your text for the WEF.
"The WSIS definition differentiates between the “development“ and the
“use“ of the Internet."
This is a very problematic concept and you agree with in point 2. The
deloper are users and some users are developers.
The core question is, for what we work. The private groups for profit,
the state groups for monitoring and control, the civil society for open
and free telecommunication. This basic interests define the activities.
The difference is the ability to act.
After this, many for me unimportant things follow. The next point is:
Technical issues. But we know, there we have 2 principal different
proposals. Overloaded with many unnecessary organisations or a strong
organisation of telecommunication. The first is based on virtual
addresses and private actors. The second is based on selforganisation
from the civil society based on her interest for a free and open
telecommunication with a simple and rational technical construction.
"Option 4: A new independent process
One could also imagine that state and non-state actors agree to
establish a new independent process towards a CSCC, aimed at the
elaboration of a comprehensive “Final Act on Security and Cooperation in
Only the civil society can create a useful process for global
cooperation. Some time ago I suggested a "World Internet Forum". The
thematic parts for that are the transport layer and the application layer.
The transport layer realise that, what you wrote in your text for the WEF.
The application layer realise the interoperability of the data. Usually,
we don't have so many questions for that.
with many thanks and greetings, willi
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Datum: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:18:12 +0100
Von: Wolfgang Kleinwaechter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
An: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, willi.uebelherr at riseup.net
Kopie (CC): forum at justnetcoalition.org, governance at lists.riseup.net
here is my latest piece I wrote for the Global Commission on Stability
Any critical comments are welcome.
Más información sobre la lista de distribución Discusion