<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and
"technical discussi</title></head><body>
<div>This seems to me to push onto key turf, Seiiti, if we want to get
our hands around the prize.<br>
</div>
<div>The years-long struggle at WSIS is the backdrop, the setting, for
me anyway. On one side was the argument that, to preserve free
expression, we could not hazard governments to bureaucratize the net.
Some might throttle it. On the other side, the argument held
that we need just the reverse - we need a little more regularity, and
accountability. (Overlaid on this dispute was a more visceral
disagreement - linked <a
href="http://davidallen.org/papers/Internet_Governance-A4.pdf">here</a
> is a brief piece, for the final negotiation, that goes a little
further on the story).<br>
</div>
<div>But I believe we will find both arguments, from each side, are
right. The only question is how to fit the two opposites
together ...<br>
<br>
How can this be? The story of the rise of the net is one of
alternation between innovation where creativity flowers freely, on the
one side, and the more orderly deliberations for standards-setting, on
the other. All that worked seamlessly, when confined to a group
of like-minded engineers, the IETF. As the net took on global
significance though - and many assorted actors got into the mix - what
had previously been an easy dance between innovation and
standardization (even if subtle and complex) became much harder to
negotiate. I think it not too much to say, that problem - to
expand the scope of participation (and not just among nations, but
among the many, many different interests and styles) - directly
triggered the struggle underlying WSIS.<br>
</div>
<div>In a net world, but with many more actors, how can we preserve
the fruits of innovation alongside a stable base of regularity, when
that orderliness and security are necessary in the first place to take
the risks of innovation?</div>
<div><br>
That is the thorny question it seems should most vex IGF. You
will say, but my goodness, governance is so much more than innovation
and standards, however arduous it may be to do both. That is
right of course. But the underlying challenge - to maintain
order at the same time that we _also_ try to let a thousand flowers
bloom - proves, I believe it will turn out, to be the same conundrum
we confront in any number of the issue areas calling out from internet
governance.<br>
<br>
This is not the place to make the case, beyond stating it simply,
baldly. If correct, it gives both sides in the long WSIS
struggle each a core stake in these next discussions ... both for the
freedom staked on one side and for the accountability staked on the
other.<br>
<br>
Yours below takes us into some of the thickets such an approach would
have to navigate.<br>
</div>
<div>--Companies that would standardize, for their interests, but
perhaps not for broader interests? The classic story of Internet
standardization has the engineer shedding personal interests, once an
innovation has been trialed in 'running code.' To come up with
new code in the first place, the innovation in other words, the
engineer tries for personal excellence; this may bring respect and an
enhanced reputation among peers. But once it is time to pick
just which code will be standard, the welfare of the whole community
takes precedence over any individual. That is the sort of
template such an approach would hold all actors and companies
to.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--End-to-end? Now we have stepped back from the incremental
innovations, which are only possible when the big architectural
innovation and choice - e2e - had already been made. This is the
discontinuous jump (call it a 'new paradigm' perhaps) that made so
many of the later incremental steps possible.</div>
<div><br>
Now today, the big architectural questions are in play again, for
instance NGN on one side and the new net design efforts such as GENI
on another. Since these choices are of such fundamental
importance to future possibilities for later, incremental innovation,
presumably we care a great deal about sustaining the environment for
these basic innovations. We also care much more which choice is
made, since follow-on innovation for whole societies - for all of us,
really - is at stake. This is akin to / can be analogized to the
choice of dominant desktop OS.</div>
<div><br>
Incidentally, if you take a look at work such as GENI, turns out that
your pointer to security is one of the mainsprings there. Also
perhaps worth noting, the e2e question is not per se whether there
will be intelligence in the core as well as the periphery.
Routers are intelligent enough. The question is more than that.
So for instance, we want to understand how NGN impacts the possibility
for innovation at the edges. Are there other advantages or
disadvantages? That is just for starters ...<br>
</div>
<div>--Individual - "full" - participation in governance,
such as standards-setting? With 6 billion people on the globe
and something like 5 billion still without a connection, we can see
there is a perplexing problem, to get everyone to the table ...
But in fact, this does go to a core issue with the conceptualization
laid out above: That is adequate means of representation, so
that a multitude of voices are somehow aggregated. This
'architecture of community' - which in good circumstances succeeds to
represent multiple voices - turns out I think to be one pivot for
making the dance between order and freedom work. Surely the
question of 'good' representation is going to be central to IGF
concerns.</div>
<div><br>
Well, this has grown a great deal longer than it should ... but
perhaps there is something useful. I hope yours may lead us onto
some new turf.<br>
<br>
David</div>
<div>At 9:54 PM -0200 1/27/06, Seiiti Arata wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi - sorry for this late-post<br>
<br>
Thanks Bill for the support in discussing these issues related to the
future of the net. Indeed, I guess that the scope of Internet
governance must become wider: encompass not only the NGNs but also ICT
generally - I really think that Zittrain`s argument that if changes to
the network are difficult to make, the targets for changing the
architecture will be the computing devices at the ends.<br>
<br>
David wrote: May I suggest? Continuing to enable free-form innovation,
which is on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line
imperatives ultimately before the IGF. In my sense anyway, this will
run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns may
engender (as Bill begins to unveil below).<br>
<br>
David, thanks for sharing your view. I agree with you on giving
preference to free-form innovation. This is exactly the reason of my
concern.<br>
<br>
However, a low level of governance in developing ICT architecture may
allow the capture of final outcomes by the most powerful and influent
actors. These will easily have their models set as the prevailing ones
in the market even though in opposition to the public interest in case
there is no adequate level of governance.<br>
<br>
IMO, we shall not force innovation to use a specific standards
organization or procedure. What is needed instead is more awareness of
the impacts of the technologies under construction. And soft
mechanisms, like Recommendations from the IGF, would bring a positive
effect and higher level of governance.<br>
<br>
Two very extreme examples that show how industry (to take one
stakeholder for instance) tends from time from time to use
technologies to their interests (which is not necessarily harmonious
to the public interest):<br>
<br>
1) In early 1999, Intel was accused of adding serial numbers into
their computer chips. Check
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-513735.html - It was necessary to
have civil liberties groups making pressure against the company to
block this tendency. If consumers were not organized or strong enough,
maybe we would be browsing with ID numbers today.<br>
<br>
2) December 2005, another "conspiracy theory" discovered:
printers being used to hide tracking dots. See:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/ Once again, a tricky
architectural feature with controversial effects was found. And the
civil liberties groups will have to use their power to put pressure
against companies to refrain from embedding such features into their
products.<br>
<br>
Of course, not every problem related to ICT architecture sounds like
an X-files episode like these two examples. DRMs for instance are
quite visible to the user: the limitations to the use of the computing
power are immediately felt when you can not play a certain file into a
certain device or print more than x copies of a doc. When DRMs meet
the trusted computing platform, limitations will be even clearer. Will
consumers have enough power to make a group made of AMD, HP, IBM,
Microsoft etc (https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home) change
their computing architectures? Will the market self-regulate and new
companies offering non-trusted computing rise as disruptors in a
market in which trusted computing becomes mainstream? I sincerely do
not know the answer.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
IMO currently the discussion on the governance aspects of development
of new technologies (including its following transformation into
standards when successful) is important. It is necessary to discuss
among stakeholders what certain technologies will bring to the
Information Society, to produce greater awareness. Only then the
"free market" will be "free". A free decision is
only taken when we know what options are available and what the
consequences will be. Otherwise, consumers will be supporting "de
facto" standards without knowing what they are really about.<br>
<br>
The IGF has a potential to add valuable contribution in this respect.
According to item 72. g. of the Tunis Agenda, the mandate of the IGF
is to "Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of
the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate,
make recommendations;". Further, generally its mandate is related
to facilitation of dialogue and enhance decision-making transparency
and everything else governance is about.<br>
<br>
One particular issue I believe can be further discussed in the IGF:
end-to-end. Many stakeholders and even the WGIG have made statements
during WSIS supporting the maintenance of the "end-to-end"
principle. Some were against it
-(http://www.wgig.org/docs/CNRInovember.pdf)<br>
<br>
What should that be really taken into consideration? Does e2e really
provide an innovative commons? What if the "rise of the middle"
(check RFC 3724 -
http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2004-March/000476.html )
can add greater security and stability? The answer does not matter.
What matters, in a good governance perspective, is that the decisions
related to the future design of the Internet and surrounding ICTs are
made with the full participation of all stakeholders. And for that,
more awareness is necessary. Working groups under the IGF umbrella
would be welcome, and the IGF itself could be an open repository of
papers, opinions etc. perhaps using a wiki or other collaborative
tool.<br>
<br>
Seiiti<br>
<br>
On 1/24/06, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu>
wrote:<br>
> Additional perspective:<br>
><br>
> The telco world has been evolving, to incorporate the rise of
the<br>
> net. Bill makes clear how NGN is one model for the
emerging, robust<br>
> 'new telco.'<br>
><br>
> The Internet side has not been sitting still. There are a
number of<br>
> initiatives underway. One, fairly recent is GENI<br>
> http://www.nsf.gov/cise/geni/ . A just released 'snapshot'
shows a<br>
> third of a billion (US) dollar effort, for first work anyway<br>
> http://www.geni.net/GENI-10-JAN-06.pdf . A quick browse
through some<br>
> of the graphics in the 122 pages gives a sense of the scope.<br>
><br>
> There are others. Besides the fairly well known
Internet2<br>
> http://www.internet2.edu/ , Bill St. Arnaud's CANARIE recently
linked<br>
> to some others<br>
> http://lists.canarie.ca/pipermail/news/2005/000177.html .
Engineers<br>
> on this IG list (perhaps Ian?) can do a better job pointing us to
the<br>
> full picture, for instance to efforts outside the US.<br>
><br>
> These are the same forces (and some of the same people) who
unleashed<br>
> the innovation that became the Internet, from a few decades
ago.<br>
><br>
> One of the more interesting questions is what might be the
relation<br>
> between telco NGN and these new visions/versions of a net.
The<br>
> recent history left Bell heads on one side and Net heads on
the<br>
> other. Recent practice at ITU-T, the standardization arm,
has<br>
> reached out to arrange for more coordination among
international<br>
> standards work, including especially with the IETF, on the net
side<br>
> of course.<br>
><br>
> May I suggest? Continuing to enable free-form innovation,
which is<br>
> on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line<br>
> imperatives ultimately before the IGF. In my sense anyway,
this will<br>
> run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns
may<br>
> engender (as Bill begins to unveil below).<br>
><br>
> This free-form innovation is IMO just one outcropping of freedom
of<br>
> expression, the touchstone for much of what powered WSIS debate,
from<br>
> both sides. And will continue to be driving in IGF, again
IMO. (If</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> we look for it in the 'principles,'
'transparent' comes closest.)<br>
><br>
> David<br>
><br>
> William Drake wrote, Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:46:56 +0100:<br>
> >Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> >I've deleted MMWG from the cc here, cross-posting filling my
box.<br>
> ><br>
> >I strongly agree with the thrust of Seiiti's message. While
this<br>
> >list was the first place to seriously discuss the case for a
broad<br>
> >definition of IG, as was eventually embraced in the Tunis
Agenda,<br>
> >the conversation usually defaults back to deconstructing
the<br>
> >internal machinations of ICANN, and everything else slips
from view.<br>
> >Given the unresolved oversight fight in WSIS and the Tunis
call for<br>
> >a new globally applicable policy principles and enhanced
cooperation<br>
> >on core resources, one imagines the IGF will end up focusing
on this<br>
> >as well in the near-term. This is unquestionably key, but at
the<br>
> >same time, there is a lot going on in other issue-areas
and<br>
> >cooperative mechanisms that we're not talking about, but that
is<br>
> >really important to the future evolution of the net.<br>
> ><br>
> >Just to note one example, there is an enormous amount of work
going<br>
> >on among governments, telcos, manufacturers and others, most
notably<br>
> >but not only in the ITU, under the rubric of 'Next
Generation<br>
> >Networks' that is designed to promote shared rules and
programs on<br>
> >surveillance (oops, sorry, security and trust) and
differentiated<br>
> >levels of service in a convergent environment. This mirrors
major<br>
> >developments happening at the national level across the OECD
region<br>
> >and probably beyond. In the US context, in addition what the
FCC's<br>
> >been doing in its IP-enabled services proceeding, there's
been some<br>
> >potentially important legislative action. For example, to
strengthen<br>
> >cyberstalking prosecution tools, the recently passed
reauthorization<br>
> >of the Violence Against Women Act amends the Communications
Act of<br>
> >America by expanding the definition of a telecommunications
device<br>
> >to cover any device or software that uses the Internet,
including<br>
> >VOIP. This could place a big chunk of the net environment
under US<br>
> >telecom 'oversight' and strengthen the drive in the
International<br>
> >Law Enforcement Telecom Seminar and elsewhere to mandate
the<br>
> >build-in of forensics capabilities, etc. Companies like
Verisign are<br>
> >very much at the center of all this, but we only talk about
the DNS<br>
> >side of their houses.<br>
> ><br>
> >The IGF is supposed to focus inter alia on cross-cutting
issues that<br>
> >don't fall neatly within the scope of other bodies, and to
promote<br>
> >the application of the Geneva principles (multilateral,<br>
> >multistakeholder, transparent, democratic) in such bodies. If
CS<br>
> >doesn't bother to promote these core parts of the mandate,
probably<br>
> >they will fall off the table. That'd be unfortunate, and we
could<br>
> >all pay for it in spades down the line.<br>
> ><br>
> >Best,<br>
> ></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> >Bill</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>