<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3314" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=434010217-13042008>Bill
and all,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=434010217-13042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=434010217-13042008>I'll
chime in a bit here as well... The early history of the Internet in Developed
Countries (I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours for what happened in
Canada) is a tangled one in terms of its ultimate directions and to a
considerable degree it depended on who you talked to or where you were standing
as to which set of priorities seemed uppermost... But that I think is a side
issue.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=434010217-13042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=434010217-13042008>The
question that I initially presented was whether or not from a public policy
perspective the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a fundamental and
necessary service i.e. as a counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the
opportunity for democratic participation, and so on. This came from a
reference to statements by Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such a
service and that this should be one of the broader presuppostions (in
Sweden) underlying decision making around other areas of public policy and
programmes.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=434010217-13042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=434010217-13042008>In its
simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the need to state
that there is a "Right to the Internet" and not simply "Rights concerning the
Internet" . If it could be argued/established/promulgated that there is a
"Right to the Internet" (understood in a very broad sense) this would have quite
a significant effect in various countries including my own (and your own as well
I think) where for example, the government has basically ceded to the private
sector a determination of whether (based on the principles "of
the market") or not a specific individual, community or region should have
a reasonable (fair and equitable) means to achieve access to the
Internet.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=434010217-13042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=434010217-13042008>(FWIW
I think as Parminder said some time ago, this may be THE fundamental
CS issue in the context of Internet Governance... As I've indicated in
this space on a number of occasions to my mind and from where I sit with respect
to the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other issues are for most ICT4D
users on the ground either derivative of this fundamental question or simply of
a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=434010217-13042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=434010217-13042008>MG </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=434010217-13042008><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=434010217-13042008> </SPAN>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <BR><B>Sent:</B> April
13, 2008 3:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Singh, Parminder; Governance<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">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: 16px">>
>> 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: 13px">“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: 16px">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: 13px"><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: 18px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><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></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></FONT></BODY></HTML>