[FSFLA] GCSC

[willi uebelherr]

Dear Wolfgang,

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
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overview_2016.pdf

"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 
receive them."

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 
Cyberspace“.

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
Asuncion, Paraguay



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: GCSC
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

Hi,

here is my latest piece I wrote for the Global Commission on Stability 
in Cyberspace

https://cyberstability.org/research/thought-piece-towards-a-holistic-approach-for-internet-related-public-policy-making/

Any critical comments are welcome.

Wolfgang