<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi Parminder,<BR>
<BR>
There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice on any one of them, but since you’re replying to me directly:<BR>
<BR>
I don’t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was seen in the Clinton era. The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects, e.g. tackling the global digital divide. I knew the staff involved---Gore’s people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you’re offering a caricature of the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of the ITU). And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to mobilize ITAA et al doesn’t define “how the net was seen” in the US or anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.<BR>
<BR>
I don’t believe there is “a” regime for IG. There are many regimes. And there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and in Europe, regional) issue at present (we’ve been here before). And per the above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it’s purely commercial to the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy. Hence, re: “Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance and policy approaches,” nope, not me, I think the issue is misconstructed.<BR>
<BR>
Friendly disagreement, let’s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad infinitum. I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the “internationalization” ws and on and on. That said, if there’s lots of support for this from others besides you, I fine, I’ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey. <BR>
<BR>
Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:<BR>
<BR>
*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and we have one, Adam’s self-nomination.<BR>
<BR>
*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.<BR>
<BR>
*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting through the list, then nailing them down.<BR>
<BR>
*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.<BR>
<BR>
Suggest we need some structured processes here.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -<BR>
> >> implications for IG"<BR>
> <BR>
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem<BR>
> this<BR>
> panel would address. Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and<BR>
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems<BR>
> a<BR>
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially<BR>
> walled off by IPR rules or what?<BR>
> <BR>
> Thanks,<BR>
> <BR>
> Bill<BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
Bill, I am not completely happy with the present title but for clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael Gurstein of 17th May, which I quote.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>“However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax on those least able to pay?)”<BR>
<BR>
“I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”<BR>
<BR>
“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming, supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that flow from this.”<BR>
<BR>
(ends)<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service, but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet policy frameworks. <BR>
<BR>
Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref. documents on US’s idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil society’s and ‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present regime of IG arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG institutions. Ok, I may be digressing a bit, but this line of argument does show the relevance and importance of the subject…<BR>
<BR>
So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is to analyze and debate how Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity, and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say ‘anyone will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for all/ most sectors of social activity.) <BR>
<BR>
I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this workshop.<BR>
<BR>
Parminder <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: William Drake [<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]">mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]</a><BR>
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM<BR>
> To: Governance<BR>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?<BR>
> <BR>
> Hi,<BR>
> <BR>
> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be<BR>
> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand<BR>
> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if<BR>
> approved. Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by<BR>
> individual<BR>
> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program. But if<BR>
> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.<BR>
> <BR>
> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly. Just<BR>
> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of<BR>
> consensus<BR>
> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to<BR>
> mention<BR>
> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc. I<BR>
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the<BR>
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,<BR>
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times<BR>
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments). Otherwise the<BR>
> two<BR>
> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and<BR>
> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th<BR>
> hour dash to finalize.<BR>
> <BR>
> Few specific comments:<BR>
> <BR>
> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt@web.de> wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :<BR>
> ><BR>
> >><BR>
> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"<BR>
> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -<BR>
> to<BR>
> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense<BR>
> to<BR>
> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many<BR>
> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the<BR>
> title as<BR>
> > you suggested.<BR>
> <BR>
> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of<BR>
> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached<BR>
> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about<BR>
> "the past." I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not<BR>
> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent<BR>
> to<BR>
> deconstructing cave drawings. And in practice, the workshop discussion<BR>
> was<BR>
> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing<BR>
> now<BR>
> as a starting point. I think this was reflected in the ws report. We<BR>
> have<BR>
> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make<BR>
> clear<BR>
> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't<BR>
> go<BR>
> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.<BR>
> <BR>
> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"<BR>
> >><BR>
> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet<BR>
> >> Governance<?<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.<BR>
> <BR>
> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really<BR>
> explored<BR>
> since WGIG/WSIS. Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has<BR>
> been<BR>
> done etc. One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at<BR>
> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that<BR>
> is,<BR>
> an inter-sovereign state process. Do we want to go there, open up a blast<BR>
> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term<BR>
> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better<BR>
> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?<BR>
> <BR>
> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,<BR>
> >> technical and private means/instruments"<BR>
> >><BR>
> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more<BR>
> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?<BR>
> ><BR>
> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about<BR>
> > jurisdiction<BR>
> ><BR>
> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because<BR>
> I<BR>
> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet<BR>
> (and<BR>
> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for<BR>
> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my<BR>
> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de<BR>
> facto<BR>
> > extraterritorial effects.<BR>
> <BR>
> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the<BR>
> idea<BR>
> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of<BR>
> jurisdiction<BR>
> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,<BR>
> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also<BR>
> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,<BR>
> e-commerce, IPR, etc. Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of<BR>
> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global<BR>
> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of<BR>
> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;<BR>
> other<BR>
> architectures are imaginable as well. We might even be able to get<BR>
> industry<BR>
> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we<BR>
> form<BR>
> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.<BR>
> <BR>
> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -<BR>
> >> implications for IG"<BR>
> <BR>
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem<BR>
> this<BR>
> panel would address. Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and<BR>
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems<BR>
> a<BR>
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially<BR>
> walled off by IPR rules or what?<BR>
> <BR>
> Thanks,<BR>
> <BR>
> Bill<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> ____________________________________________________________<BR>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
> governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
> <BR>
> For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
William J. Drake <BR>
Director, Project on the Information<BR>
Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<BR>
Graduate Institute of International and<BR>
Development Studies<BR>
Geneva, Switzerland<BR>
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>