[Chapter-delegates] ISOC - CL : Concept note review: Extraterritorial Application of Laws and Impact on the Internet

Sun Sep 16 23:48:38 PDT 2018

Richard,

a number of the invariants and other norms that emerge from the technical
community - protocols etc. - are of voluntary adoption, yet constitute what
is basically the physics of the Internet.

National laws have been written and enacted that are not compatible with
the laws of Newton, Boyle, Mariotte, Carnot, Maxwell, Schroedinger, or
Einstein, and do not work all that well.

Now of course the Internet is a built object and laws can be forced upon
networks that deviate from the voluntarily adoptable protocols and
practices. But you end up with Minitel, not the Internet. You have made
your choice. Others will continue to opt for the open, interoperable
Internet and its continued evolution.

For the sake of other participants I am not going down the usual descending
spiral of minced crumbles of argument.

Alejandro Pisanty

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:14 AM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Dear Alejandro,
>
>
>
> Thank you for this. When I said that I agreed with what you said, I did
> not mean to imply that you would agree with my additional comments.
>
>
>
> You stated that the small constituency that has agreed the “Internet
> invariants”  happens to largely be the technical community that develops
> and operates the Internet.  The “invariants” have been agreed by ISOC (and
> perhaps also IETF). While it is true that that community comprises people
> that develop and operate the Internet, it does not comprise all the people
> that develop and operate the Internet, nor those that market it and manage
> financial and administrative issues. In fact, many of the people that
> operate the Internet have never heard of ISOC, and some of those people
> would not necessarily subscribe to the invariants as currently formulated.
>
>
>
> More importantly, the issue is whether the “invariants”, as formulated by
> that small technical community, should constrain national laws. I would
> argue that, if they did constrain national laws,  then that would violate
> the principle of democracy which is enshrined in article 21 of the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>
>
>
> As I said in my detailed comments, there is a hierarchy of norms, and laws
> cannot be constrained by the views of a small technical community, even if
> laws should be informed by the views of that technical community.
>
>
>
> You say that I argue in favor of state-centered solutions. But the issue
> we are discussing is national laws and their extra-territorial effects
> (that is, international law). Laws, both national and international, are
> made by states. So I don’t see how we can discuss laws without discussing
> the role of states, and I don’t see how we can discuss international law
> without discussing the role of treaties.
>
>
>
> I suppose that one could argue that, for what concerns the Internet, laws
> should not be made by states, but by some technical community. In my view,
> that would violate the principle of democracy which, again, is a recognized
> human right. So I would not agree with that (hypothetical) proposal.
>
>
>
> You say that a multi-stakeholder, globally built, issue- and
> solution-oriented approach would be preferable.  I fully agree that
> solutions must be issue- and solution-oriented and globally built. You will
> find my specific suggestions for how to develop issue- and
> solution-oriented and global solutions here:
>
>
>
>   http://www.apig.ch/Gaps%20r9%20clean.pdf
>
>
>
> I also agree that a multi-stakeholder approach is necessary, provided that
> it is understood that decisions regarding public policy matters are, in the
> end, made by the freely chosen representatives of the people. So we might
> not agree on what constitutes an appropriate multi-stakeholder model.  My
> views on what would be an appropriate multi-stakeholder model are set forth
> here:
>
>
>
>   http://www.apig.ch/best_practices.pdf
>
>
>
>   http://www.apig.ch/democratic_and_participative.pdf
>
>
>
> Since you mention the multi-stakeholder approach, I will once again state
> that I am surprised that ISOC is not more active in opposing current
> efforts to move essentially all Internet-related issues into the World
> Trade Organization (or multi-state trade negotiations), which is the least
> transparent and least inclusive of all the international organizations. WTO
> and trade negotiations are definitely not multi-stakeholder processes.
>
>
>
> If you are worried about the extra-territorial effects of laws, then you
> should be worried stiff, and not sleep at night, regarding what is going on
> in the WTO and in trade negotiations, see:
>
>
>
>   http://twn.my/title2/resurgence/2017/324-325/cover09.htm
>
>
>
> I agree that a meta-issue is how to ensure that the Internet survives and
> thrives in the face of increasing challenges that originate from states.
>
>
>
> In my view, the only way to do this is to recognize, that at least for
> now, states have power, and can and will use it to affect the Internet. So
> it makes no sense to deny the power of states. What should be done is to
> use democratic means to influence states both at the national level and at
> the international level. And ISOC does indeed to do that.
>
>
>
> And I would add that an even more pressing issue is how to ensure that the
> Internet we want can thrive in the face of increasing challenges that
> originate from dominant private companies.  Tim Berners-Lee has called for
> a “Magna Carta” for the Internet, see (in particular at 5 min. 50 sec. into
> the speech):
>
>
>
>
> https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_a_magna_carta_for_the_web?language=en
>
>
>
> A related written statement (not by Tim) is at:
>
>
>
> https://webwewant.org/news/who-saved-the-web/
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> *From:* Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 17, 2018 06:30
> *To:* Richard Hill
> *Cc:* ISOC Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC - CL : Concept note review:
> Extraterritorial Application of Laws and Impact on the Internet
>
>
>
> Richard,
>
>
>
> it seems we agree a lot less than your public statement indicates. Nor are
> the notes in the document you attach so extensive as to be unsuitable for
> the body of the message itself.
>
>
>
> You state that the "Internet invariants" are agreed upon by only a small
> constituency. While that may be true (and differently for each invariant),
> that "small constituency" happens to largely be the technical community
> that develops and operates the Internet.
>
>
>
> Unsurprisingly, in the small type you argue in favor of state-centered
> solutions (state action, treaties and international law) where most of us
> in ISOC, the Internet Society, find a multistakeholder, globally built,
> issue- and solution-oriented approach preferrable and much more suitable to
> make the Internet survive and thrive in the face of increasing challenges
> that originate from state-centric mentalities.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 2:40 AM Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
> I agree with much of what Alejandro says below, and I have the following
> overall comments.
>
> The Concept Note appears to me to suffer from what I consider to be some
> misconceptions: (1) that there is something new or unusual about
> extra-territorial effects of national laws; (2) that we, ISOC, have some
> special skills/knowledge that entitles us to pontificate on how to address
> these issues for what concerns the Internet; (3) that the particular
> principles that we, ISOC, believe are important should be imposed on all
> constituencies.
>
> I believe that these are misconceptions because: (1) the extra-territorial
> effects of national laws is a long-standing and well known issue that has
> long been addressed by international law; (2) the Internet affects all
> walks of life, so the issues are complex and transcend a narrow technical
> view; (3) other constituencies may have legitimate principles which may
> differ from or complement our principles and much discussion and
> collaboration will be required to come to agreed solutions.
>
> I would suggest to redraft the paper so that it focuses on a specific area
> of law with extra-territorial effects that is of particular relevance to
> the Internet, namely data protection/privacy.
>
> My criticism (hopefully constructive) is set forth in detail in the
> attached file (in both Word and PDF formats).
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alejandro Pisanty via Internet Society
> > [mailto:Mail at ConnectedCommunity.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 08:11
> > To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> > Subject: RE: ISOC - CL : Concept note review: Extraterritorial
> > Application of Laws and Impact on the Internet
> >
> > == Please, reply above this line ==
> >
> > Dear Konstantinos,
> > thanks for sending us this draft; it is important work. A first set of
> > comments:
> > 1. It is truly unbelievable that the examples of extraterritorial reach
> > of laws do not include first and foremost the United States, and leaves
> > this country only to a minor, rather specialized paragraph related to
> > law-enforcement cooperation through MLATs. By the way, the Budapest
> > Convention is sort of a pooled MLAT. US law is the most
> > extraterritorial one on the Internet, if only through the Terms of Use
> > or Terms of Service of US-based online services. It may be true that we
> > accept this as a sort of inevitability, or that we may claim that
> > people outside the US voluntarily subscribe to these US-jurisdiction
> > based rules as they voluntarily decide to voluntarily take their
> > search, maps, social media and many other needs to these services. But
> > it should backfire badly for ISOC not to make a more explicity and
> > notorious treatment of this.
> > 2. While ISOC has settled on its own version of Internet "invariants",
> > and we had that debate several times years ago, at least this time
> > "Openness" should be stated firmly and clearly, and not diluted under
> > mention of "Accessibility." Further, "accessibility" is often read with
> > a different meaning, and the sense that the Internet must be able to
> > reach every human being is now being called Universality in other
> > organizations. "Openness" sends a much clearer message about what is
> > wrong with making border-based walls on the Internet.
> > 3. To the list of effects of extraterritorial law, please consider
> > adding two:
> > a. Layer crossings, layer violations. In order to decide whether some
> > packets may cross a certain border, their contents and even intents
> > have to be inspected and decided upon. A human-layer decision picks
> > them up and then orders and enacts the decision in lower layers.
> > b. Derived of the above in part, friction.
> > 4. When it comes to the Principles section, I would first add "conduct-
> > based", i.e. legislation and rules should be designed primarily about
> > the human (physical person or organization) whose conduct the law in
> > each country regulates. Even firearm regulations are not strictly
> > directed to guns, to use a hot example; they intend to influence and
> > modulate the conduct of humans with these weapons. "Legislate to the
> > conduct, not to the medium" is a very useful principle. You can go back
> > to popular descriptions of the effects of the Internet like John Seely
> > Brown's 6D (delocalization, decentralization, deintermediation, etc.)
> > or to a newer list (massification, etc.) to show that for the purposes
> > of this paper and of legislation, the Internet adds new dimensions to
> > human conduct but most, if not all, conducts preexisted the Internet.
> > Phishing is fraud plus supplantation, and so on. We have had productive
> > experiences in dealing with legislatures which were processing awful
> > law initiatives by
> >  applying this principle.
> > 5. An editorial nit, it would seem nice to replace "what's gone" or
> > "what's done" for a more formal expression, "what has already been
> > done", and probably also to use "done" or "gone" consistently.
> > I'm sure there is much more to be said but hope this gives us a start.
> > Alejandro Pisanty
> >
> > ------Original Message------
> >
> > Dear colleagues
> >
> > As part of deliberating on issues that affect the way the Internet
> > evolves, we have been observing the increasing emergence of national
> > legislation that appears to be having an extraterritorial effect. The
> > most standard definition of extraterritoriality refers to "the
> > operation of laws upon persons existing beyond the limits of the
> > enacting state or nation but who are still amenable to its laws".
> >
> > In light of this trend, we have produced a concept note seeking to
> > start a conversation about the possible implications
> > extraterritoriality can have on the global and interoperable Internet.
> > As you will see, this concept note mainly seeks to pose questions and
> > identify some of the issues where extraterritoriality might be
> > detrimental to the Internet. Its aim is not to criticize the laws from
> > a substantive point of view.
> >
> > You will also see an Annex at the end of the paper with a list of
> > different laws that appear to have an extraterritorial effect. The list
> > is not exhaustive and it is meant to be live so we can make edits and
> > additions as we go along.
> >
> >
> > We would like to invite you to preview the concept note, and to provide
> > us with your feedback.
> >
> > You can view the PDF version at:   https://isoc.box.com/v/public-
> > preview <https://isoc.box.com/v/public-preview> -- the file is marked
> > as "ISOC-Extraterritorial-Laws-201809-v2-PREVIEW.pdf"
> >
> > The review period will run until Tuesday, 25 September 2018.
> >
> > We particularly would be interested in your input on the following:
> >
> > 1. Unlike our previous policy briefs, this is a concept note and it is
> > meant to be a conversation starter than a paper that offers all the
> > answers. Are there any major questions that we missed in the coverage
> > of the issues?
> >
> > 2. Will the paper help you "start" a conversation in your region?
> >
> > 3. Can you help us feed in the Annex by making corrections and/or
> > additions of laws from your respective countries/regions?
> >
> >
> > We welcome your comments. Please send them to Konstantinos Komaitis
> > (komaitis at isoc.org <komaitis at isoc.org>).
> >
> > With kind regards,
> >
> > Konstantinos
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > komaitis at isoc.org
> > Director, Policy Development and Strategy
> >
> > Note: replies will be sent to the full discussion group.
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Reply to Sender :
> > https://connect.internetsociety.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=31&Sende
> > rKey=2276620e-262e-48b6-9a9f-
> > 51fb1c5cdd4f&MID=34152&MDATE=756%253d45%253e467&UserKey=296926c2-9e08-
> > 4945-bb0c-779e5cc54f61&sKey=bac3f09663034684b226
> >
> > Reply to Discussion :
> > https://connect.internetsociety.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=31&MID=3
> > 4152&MDATE=756%253d45%253e467&UserKey=296926c2-9e08-4945-bb0c-
> > 779e5cc54f61&sKey=bac3f09663034684b226
> >
> >
> >
> > You are subscribed to "Chapter Leaders Community" as rhill at hill-a.ch.
> > To change your subscriptions, go to
> > http://connect.internetsociety.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions&MD
> > ATE=756%253d45%253e467&UserKey=296926c2-9e08-4945-bb0c-
> > 779e5cc54f61&sKey=bac3f09663034684b226. To unsubscribe from this
> > community discussion, go to
> > http://connect.internetsociety.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx
> > ?UserKey=296926c2-9e08-4945-bb0c-
> > 779e5cc54f61&sKey=bac3f09663034684b226&GroupKey=679aae94-6767-4b89-
> > af2f-4f6122e16416.
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20180917/a20545ee/attachment.htm>