<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Workshop Report: Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Perhaps of interest to someone not on the GigaNet list...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
------ Forwarded Message<BR>
<B>From: </B>William Drake <drake@hei.unige.ch><BR>
<B>Reply-To: </B>William Drake <drake@hei.unige.ch><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:06:54 +0100<BR>
<B>To: </B><GIGANET-MEMBERS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><BR>
<B>Conversation: </B>Workshop Report: Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance<BR>
<B>Subject: </B>[GIGANET-MEMBERS] Workshop Report: Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance<BR>
<BR>
Hello,<BR>
<BR>
Last week I decided to take advantage of the fact that people were in Geneva for the IGF consultation and organized a little workshop on development issues in Internet governance. I wrote up a little summary for the web, but as we’re presently without a webmaster it might not get posted for awhile, so I’m passing along the text in case anyone’s interested. I’d like to propose this as a possible focus for the Rio symposium. There’s not been a lot of systematic academic research on the matter, and at least some developing country government people (at the workshop and elsewhere) have expressed a desire for scholars to step up and provide some food for thought and debate. Given that 1) it’s rare for earthlings to actually express an interest in academic scribblings; 2) development aspects really haven’t been analyzed seriously in the IG debates to date; and 3) we’ll be in Rio, which presumably increases the chances of involving some scholars from the global South, I would think this is a good thematic for the symposium. If we got a solid set of papers, there could even be a noteworthy book here.<BR>
<BR>
Any thoughts on this possibility?<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<I><BR>
-----<BR>
<BR>
<B>Workshop Report<BR>
</B></I><BR>
<BR>
<B>Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance <BR>
</B><BR>
Wednesday 14 February 2007, 14:00-17:00<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance<BR>
Program for the Study of International Organization(s)<BR>
Graduate Institute for International Studies<BR>
Geneva<BR>
<a href="http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/projectDrake.html">http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/projectDrake.html</a> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Background & Objectives<BR>
</I><BR>
In recent years, developing countries, civil society organizations, and concerned academics have sought to promote broad development agendas in the international institutions and policy debates dealing with such issues as trade, debt, and intellectual property. But in the field of Internet governance, no parallel initiative has taken shape. Development concerns were raised during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, but they were not systematically explored as elements of a coherent development agenda. Moreover, in the post-WSIS environment, discussions of development have tended to focus on capacity building, rather than on the substantive policies and institutional measures that may be needed. <BR>
<BR>
Accordingly, the purpose of this workshop was to begin a multistakeholder dialogue on the nature of a possible development agenda in Internet governance. Leaving aside the challenges of capacity building, the workshop explored such questions as: 1) Which of the many issues involved in Internet governance should be given priority in the near-term? 2) Would any substantive changes in the governance of these issues be both desirable and realistically achievable in the current environment? 3) Could new approaches to these individual issues collectively constitute a holistic and coherent development agenda, and what would be the benefits and risks of pursuing such a framework? 4) How can these concerns best be taken forward within the distributed array of governmental, intergovernmental, private sector, and multistakeholder governance mechanisms? The workshop considered these and related questions both generally and with respect to the two main initiatives launched by WSIS---enhanced cooperation, and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Program<BR>
</I> <BR>
14:00-15:00 Enhanced Cooperation and Internet Core Resources <BR>
<BR>
15:00-16:00 Other Priority Issues from a Development Perspective<BR>
<BR>
16:00-17:00 Advancing Development Concerns in the IGF and Other Forums<BR>
<BR>
17:00-18:00 Reception at the Villa Barton<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Summary of the Discussion<BR>
</I><BR>
The workshop began with a discussion of the notion of a Development Agenda. There was broad agreement that development should be viewed in a holistic manner and as a transversal issue of relevance to all Internet governance mechanisms. One participant suggested that the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society embodies this view and provides a foundation for a Development Agenda. This is particularly true of Paragraph 65, which states that, “We underline the need to maximise the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet Governance, which should reflect their interests, as well as in development and capacity-building. Clearly though, much more analysis and dialogue would be needed to determine precisely what such broad normative prescriptions might actually mean in practice within any given governance mechanism.<BR>
<BR>
It was suggested that an overarching principle of a Development Agenda should be something akin to developing countries’ right to “special and differential” (S&D) treatment under international trade rules. In the World Trade Organization, S&D treatment includes: giving longer time periods for implementing agreements and commitments; measures designed to enhance developing countries’ trading opportunities; requirements that all member countries safeguard developing country interests; technical support to help developing countries build the skills and institutional infrastructure for negotiations, dispute management, and the implementation of standards; and special provisions to assist the Least Developed Countries. Participants expressed interest in the concept, and one noted by way of example that the regional registries do have a special program for developing countries with respect to the distribution of IP addresses. But more generally, it was as yet unclear whether a similar principle could be relevant across the board in the Internet governance context. In a number of cases, the functional issues and collective action problems involved are qualitatively different in ways that might render inapplicable at least some elements of S&D treatment as it understood in the trade environment. <BR>
<BR>
The group pointed to several obstacles that would need to be overcome in order to elaborate a meaningful framework. One developing country participant noted that there is very little scholarly literature on the developmental implications of Internet governance, and argued that concerned governments and stakeholders would benefit by having systematic research at their disposal when considering the issues. Another person averred that there is a “paradigm gap” between experts in development policy and experts in global information and communication technology (ICT) policy, including those working on Internet governance issues. As the differing analytical and programmatic orientations of these two communities could impede efforts to mainstream development concerns into Internet governance processes, he suggested that it would be useful to organize meetings and other dialogues between them. At the same time, several participants added that care should be taken to avoid excessively blurring the boundary line between general ICT for development (or ICT4D) issues and the narrower realm of Internet governance for development issues. As has already been demonstrated in the post-WSIS context, it can be difficult to keep focused on governance per se, and addressing relatively distinct ICT4D matters that are being worked on elsewhere could dilute the discussion and impede progress. <BR>
<BR>
Not surprisingly, there was a rather lively discussion about the governance of core resources. One thread of the conversation pertained to another boundary question, namely the criteria for selecting issues for inclusion in a possible Development Agenda. A participant argued that anything developing countries deem to be a development issue is by definition a development issue. Others saw a distinction between political issues, such as some countries’ calls for intergovernmental “oversight,” and cases in which governance mechanisms could be clearly demonstrated to functionally constrain development opportunities. A number of participants maintained that there is no concrete evidence that the existing frameworks for root servers, names and numbers, and protocols actually limit development, and no reason to believe that institutional changes would promote development more effectively. In response, it was suggested that the experiences of Cuba and Iran indicated that the root server system was open to abuse, which would imply that political and functional issues cannot always be easily delineated. But another developing country participant took a different view, stating bluntly that most of the problems are at the national level, where the requisite skills, flexible and multistakeholder policy processes, and mobilized business and civil society constituents are often in short supply. Given these capacity problems, developing country governments have taken the easier route of issuing political demands for intergovernmental control in order to obtain an equal seat at the table for possible future use.<BR>
<BR>
In a similar vein, a participant argued that the existing arrangements inhibit participation by governments and other stakeholders from developing countries. A second agreed, stating that the transfer of skills has been limited by the extant structures. Others felt the arrangements were in fact quite open to developing countries’ participation, but acknowledged that more could be done to facilitate their productive engagement. In this context, there also was discussion of the cultural barriers to participation in some of the relevant forums. For example, one person noted that in the Internet Engineering Task Force, the vigorous exchange of ideas in the course of problem solving means a participant “has to be prepared to be told you’re stupid;” such a prospect might not be enticing to people from some cultural and professional backgrounds. This would seem to be a generalized problem; the style and mechanics of interaction within other technical and operational organizations as well may be off-putting to people who are accustomed to the more formal and procedural environment of intergovernmental organizations. In sum, all participants were in agreement that there is a pressing need to enhance the participation of developing country stakeholders, whether through capacity building or the reduction of any informal barriers.<BR>
<BR>
Per usual, the extended discussion of core resources left less time for focused consideration of other governance issues, such as those concerning infrastructure and the Internet’s use for information, communication, and commerce. This was ironic, since it would seem easier to reach agreement on a Development Agenda encompassing issues. That is, in cases like international interconnection, security, intellectual property, networked trade and global electronic commerce, consumer protection, spam, cultural diversity, and privacy, it may be easier to demonstrate the existing governance arrangements, or at times the weakness or lack thereof, inhibit development opportunities in identifiable ways. Moreover, in some of these cases, such as intellectual property and networked trade, the S&D principle as defined in the WTO could be directly applicable. Participants variously took note of these and related issues and indicated that further consideration of them would be merited.<BR>
<BR>
There were two concrete suggestions on how the notion of a Development Agenda could be taken forward. One participant suggested that to avoid reinventing the wheel, there could be a stock taking exercise to cull insights from prior analyses and dialogues on the developmental aspects of Internet governance. Another idea was to explore the issues in more depth at the next annual symposium of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet), to be held on the eve of the November 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Rio de Janeiro. A discussion based on a good set of papers by academics from around the world would at least partially redress the abovementioned shortage of usable scholarly research, and could help to facilitate multistakeholder dialogue in the IGF and elsewhere on the potential utility and substance of a Development Agenda. The members of the GigaNet Start Up Group in attendance agreed to explore this possibility with their colleagues in the period to follow.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Participants <BR>
</I><BR>
Amr Aljowaily<BR>
First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Egypt; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Qusai Al-Shatti<BR>
Deputy Chairman, Kuwait Information Technology Society; Kuwait<BR>
<BR>
Karen Banks <BR>
Network Development Manager, Association for Progressive Communications; United Kingdom<BR>
<BR>
Ralf Bendrath <BR>
Researcher, University of Bremen; Germany<BR>
<BR>
Philippe Dam <BR>
Program Officer, Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Avri Doria <BR>
Research Consultant, Luleå University of Technology; Sweden<BR>
<BR>
William J. Drake<BR>
Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance, PSIO/HEI; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Geneviève Féraud<BR>
Head, ICT and E-Business Branch, UN Conference on Trade and Development; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Ingrid Martinez Galindo<BR>
First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Guatemala; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Charles Geiger <BR>
Special Adviser, UN Conference on Trade and Development and former Executive Director, <BR>
World Summit on the Information Society; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Gonzalo Jordan<BR>
Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission of Argentina; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Jean W. Kimani<BR>
First Counsellor (political), Permanent Mission of Kenya; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Wolfgang Kleinwächter<BR>
Professor of International Communications, University of Aarhus; Denmark<BR>
<BR>
Markus Kummer <BR>
Executive Coordinator, Internet Governance Forum; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Christopher Marsden <BR>
Senior Analyst, Information Society, RAND Europe; United Kingdom<BR>
<BR>
Chengetai Masango<BR>
Consultant, Internet Governance Forum; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Boyke Nurdin<BR>
Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Indonesia; Geneva <BR>
<BR>
Adam Peake <BR>
Senior Research Fellow, GLOCOM; Japan<BR>
<BR>
Alejandro Pisanty<BR>
Professor of Chemistry and Director of Computing Academic Services, National University of Mexico, and former Vice-Chairman of the Board, ICANN; Mexico<BR>
<BR>
David Souter <BR>
Managing Director, ict Development Associates, and former CEO, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization; United Kingdom<BR>
<BR>
Riaz K. Tayob<BR>
Representative, Third World Network; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Vicente Paolo Yu<BR>
Coordinator, Global Governance for Development Programme, South Centre; Geneva<BR>
<BR>
*******************************************************<BR>
William J. Drake drake@hei.unige.ch<BR>
Director, Project on the Information<BR>
Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<BR>
Graduate Institute for International Studies<BR>
Geneva, Switzerland<BR>
<a href="http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake">http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake</a><BR>
*******************************************************<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
------ End of Forwarded Message<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>