Archive for February, 2013

Dr. Claus Ulmer of Deutsche Telekom on the European Data Protection Reform projet:

However, the text of the regulation still has to be adapted to the extent that multinational corporations with numerous legal units are also clearly covered by the regulation and can therefore profit from it.

At first sight it’s spin for data protection. The sort of expressions you hope these persons don’t take home from work, and it gets you pleased as a punch. Anyway, what seems to contradict the lobbying from Us corporations in Brussels against data protection makes sense from the perspective of Deutsche Telekom. Deutsche Telekom is satisfied with the current data protection regime under German law and as a multinational corporation appreciates equivalent uniform rules for Europe, refutes self-regulation as a too lenghty process, embarks into a simple one-stop-shop approach. Interesting interview.


Read Full Post »

Ambassador Philip Verveer addresses internet governance and casts water on European cloud privacy concerns.

Read Full Post »

W3C Encrypted Media Extensions “…allows JavaScript to select content protection mechanisms, control license/key exchange, and implement custom license management algorithms. It supports a wide range of use cases without requiring client-side modifications in each user agent for each use case. This also enables content providers to develop a single application solution for all devices.”

Read Full Post »

Multistakeholder WCIT

ITU is the new multistakeholder? From an analysis of Alexander Klimburg on the ITU WCIT summit for a ITRs revision:

According to noted Internet governance scholar Wolfgang Kleinwächter, the language in the new ITRs could actually imply the creation of a “new” multistakeholder system for Internet governance, one that ultimately replaces the existing system with something working under the aegis and ultimate control of the ITU.

There are quite a few academics that tried to transform the ITU into a multi-stakeholder governance mechanism. But the reformist approach overlooks in the difficulties of a world organisation as the ITU. The article of Klimburg compares a clash between “Cybersovereignty” and “Multistakeholder” at the WCIT to the Yalta meeting.

The article of Klimburg overlooks that ITU-T is a multistakeholder organisation and European players embark on a cybersovereignty approach, simply because the multistakeholderism of the US does not give them a fair share, still they cannot support an expansion of power for ITU world governance: In a world with more than 200 nations “world governance” leads to hypocrite political corruption, nurtures a political class that at best trickles down the “capacity building and technical assistance” in their nation. There is simply no reason why leading industrial nations would want to let questionable regimes of nations with an irrelevant internet share meddle with the governance of the internet. And also you hardly discover good reason why the expensive closed-shop ITU-T multistakeholderism or the IGF would seem qualified. The US excitement for flat multistakeholder governance was build on an engineer perspective of the kind “railways to the railway people” along libertarian scepticism against the US government capabilities to get it right. The ITU-T exemplifies a more static industrial multistakeholderism that does not suit the internet.

Read Full Post »