Diplo Internet Governance Community

Stay networked. Get informed. Broadcast your projects.

Any thoughts on the article below, as we know US policies hugely influences the policies of our Caribbean Countries.  The article highlights a number of pertinent issues up for discussion at our upcoming IG forum in August.

Washington Post Article on US Foreign Policy of the Internet - July 14, 2011

http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/rm/2011/168612.htm

Op-Ed:
Karen Kornbluh
U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Daniel Weitzner, White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Internet Policy

Iran’s recent announcement that it plans to disconnect Iranian cyberspace from the rest of the world was another dramatic sign that the Internet is at risk of being carved up into national mini-Internets, each with its own rules and restrictions. In contrast, the United States has staked out a clear position of leadership in building a global consensus around the benefits of an open, interconnected Internet.

In May, President Obama issued the U.S. International Strategy for Cyberspace, our agenda for safeguarding the single Internet. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has developed a groundbreaking Internet freedom agenda, a principled approach to preserving the freedom to connect — the freedoms of expression, association and assembly online — and to ensuring that the Internet can be a platform for commerce, debate, learning and innovation in the 21st century. Senior government officials and stakeholders, meeting at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) this month, took a major step toward these goals by committing to Internet policymaking principles.

The Internet is a powerful tool for innovation and expression because it allows information and ideas to flow freely. According to McKinsey, the Internet has generated as much growth over the past 15 years as the Industrial Revolution generated in 50 years. This is a clear jobs issue — particularly in the United States. Over the past five years, the Internet has been responsible for 21 percent of the growth in mature economies and has created 2.6 jobs for every job it has displaced. Its power to generate innovation is rivaled only by its potential to help people realize their rights and democratic aspirations.

The Internet is so productive — and powerful — because no centralized authority governs it and no nation owns it. You do not need permission to share ideas or associate with others around the globe. Instead, a decentralized system of public and private actors collaborates to ensure its function and expansion.

But this means that nations that choose to take a heavy-handed approach to regulating the Internet can reduce its value for every other nation and user.

For this reason, collective action is needed to safeguard this global treasure. A foreign policy that accounts for the Internet has become essential. We need to work with other countries and stakeholders to build a global consensus on the importance of open communications online among all users — everywhere in the world. And we must build consensus around norms and expectations of behavior essential to that vision.

That’s why the president’s strategy calls for international partnership to support an open Internet that is secure and reliable. And it’s why the secretary of state has called for the global community to “join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an open Internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries.”

The recent meeting called by the OECD (the international economics policy standards organization) assembled leaders from 40 governments, business and the Internet technical community. It produced a set of broad principles for safeguarding the open Internet that address three key international threats to the seamless, interconnected Web.

The first threat is posed by some governments and international institutions intent on imposing pre-Internet-era telecommunications regulatory schemes to provide them control over the flow of information (and money) they enjoyed in the old days of the monopoly phone company. The OECD consensus principles provide Internet diplomats a rallying point of best-practice guidelines, including support for today’s multi-stakeholder approach as the pro-growth alternative to backward-looking controls over the Internet.

The second challenge is how to address important concerns, including protection of personal data, children and consumers; intellectual property rights; and cybersecurity without balkanizing the Internet or restricting competition and the free flow of information. The OECD principles provide guidelines for how to respond. The Obama administration is already implementing them domestically and working with other countries to find technology-savvy solutions that avoid onerous regulations that run counter to the design of an open Internet.

The third threat comes from Iran, Syria and other cyber-autocracies that use pretexts to deny their citizens their rights to express themselves, seek and receive information, and freely associate. These OECD guidelines make clear that countries can address policy challenges without violating these fundamental rights.

Our Internet foreign policy will require building support for these principles with governments, business and civil society. We will need to work with other countries to demonstrate that the principles work. Our diplomacy will also entail continuing to build support for the “freedom to connect” for everyone, and for the human rights, innovation and free-trade benefits that flow from it. The stakes are high, but the OECD principles are an important tool to help us achieve those objectives.

Views: 33

Replies to This Discussion

Context - and the subtext - is very important to understanding.  And all information absent context tends to noise.  So, I'm going to answer you by adding a little more information for context.  And advise that you do a little 'triangulating' for subtext to emerge.

Let us be clear about objectives.  And recognize that we might have the same objectives. But for different reasons and needs.

If, like me, you subscribe to the proposition of an Internet that affords the free flow of contending ideas, including money-making ones and would rather see every and all kinds of opinions, not only politically-correct ones, afforded the disinfectant of the 'sunshine' by which reasonable people examining all of them could reject all by declaring a pox on all their houses, then fragmentation is ALWAYS bad. 

 

So now, think you on these things. Last month, President Obama signed an executive order that provides guidelines for the U.S. Military in cyber warfare.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/military-g...

Last week the Pentagon officially acknowledged cyberspace as a warfare domain:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/pentagon-d...

With these actions, the Internet is now officially a permanent national security interest of the United States Government. 

This is not to be taken lightly. If you haven't thought this thru as yet, information - its easy and unrestrained flow - is even more central to modern war making - and defense from war. So, given the global importance of survivable and self-healing telecommunications networks to war-making and enabling easy reach of both friends and adversaries, fragmentation of the Internet and cyber warfare is an inconvenient mix, especially when you are on the offensive.

The subtext for decrying fragmentation as illiberal is good but not the only reason; it is wholly inconvenient when 'pariah' states such as Iran and N. Korea and fellow travelers cauterize and cut themselves off.

Next, the plaint about pre-Internet era regulatory schemes. Read what they say here with great skepticism; the '(and money)' part is the dead giveway.  Really rich,that!  I will bet you my right hand that it is NEVER about the control.  It really is about the money.  But this must be clothed in a shield of piety.  The fact is the northern metropolitan countries are by far and way the greatest beneficiaries of the global digital economy today. And you would be a common fool if you think they would not be anxious to preserve this position. Almost all of the necessary infrastructure - consisting of domain registries, domain registrars, online payment systems etc. - is concentrated in the northern metropolitan countries, who just happen to share membership of the OECD.   So, money advantage, OECD.

 

The nexus of multistakeholder concerns and 'Our Internet foreign policy' is an arriviste position.  For quite frankly, the original 'multistakeholder' concept that was in play did not go much beyond OECD and certain 'friends'; see Madame Redding's proposal at the time of the ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments brouhaha.   Africa and the Caribbean were not considered worthy.  Ditto most of Latin America with the possible exception of Brazil.  China, that ominous colossus for Internet use - and arguably the future of the Internet - was embraced like an unloved third cousin on your mother's side.

That said, it is somewhat satisfying to see the final paragraph in print.  Let us be vigilant and watch the practical steps taken to effect this hopeful future telegraphed here.  

 

 

 

I believe this points to the need for more of us in the Caribbean or with conections to the Caribbean to get involved in the discussions and organisations that shape and guid policies that decide the future of OUR internet

Yessir!

 

If not already engaged, I implore all of you to begin to follow and participate in Internet Governance policy matters thru ICANN and the IGF.   There are way too few of us from the Caribbean involved.  And we need more.

Consider joining the ICANN At-Large organisation.  The regional IGF takes place next month in Trinidad and Tobago (Aug 8-11).

RSS

Members

Follow us

Website and downloads

Visit Diplo's IG website, www.diplomacy.edu/ig for info on programmes, events, and resources.

The full text of the book An Introduction to Internet Governance is available here. The translated versions in Serbian/BCS (4th ed.), as well as first editions in French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, and Portuguese are also available for download.

Interviews


Karlene Francis (Jamaica)
Ivar Hartmann
(Brazil)
Elona Taka (Albania)
Fahd Batayneh (Jordan)
Edward Muthiga (Kenya)
Nnenna Nwakanma (Côte d'Ivoire)
Xu Jing (China)
Gao Mosweu (Botswana)
Jamil Goheer (Pakistan)
Virginia (Ginger) Paque (Venezuela)
Tim Davies (UK)
Charity Gamboa-Embley (Philippines)
Rafik Dammak (Tunisia)
Jean-Yves Gatete (Burundi)
Guilherme Almeida (Brazil)
Magaly Pazello (Brazil)
Sergio Alves Júnior (Brazil)
Adela Danciu (Romania)
Simona Popa (Romania)
Marina Sokolova (Belarus)
Andreana Stankova (Bulgaria)
Vedran Djordjevic (Canada)
Maria Morozova (Ukraine)
David Kavanagh (Ireland)
Nino Gobronidze (Georgia)
Sorina Teleanu (Romania)
Cosmin Neagu (Romania)
Maja Rakovic (Serbia)
Elma Demir (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Tatiana Chirev (Moldova)
Maja Lubarda (Slovenia)
Babatope Soremi (Nigeria)
Marilia Maciel (Brazil)
Raquel Gatto (Brazil)
Andrés Piazza (Argentina)
Nevena Ruzic (Serbia)
Deirdre Williams (St. Lucia)
Maureen Hilyard (Cook Islands)
Monica Abalo (Argentina)
Emmanuel Edet (Nigeria)
Mwende Njiraini (Kenya)
Marsha Guthrie (Jamaica)
Kassim M. AL-Hassani (Iraq)
Marília Maciel (Brazil)
Alfonso Avila (Mexico)
Pascal Bekono (Cameroon)

© 2013   Created by Community Owner.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service