<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>Re: rights based approach to the Internet</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Bill<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Before launching into personal accusations you should realize where this
conversation started from. I and some others proposed a workshop (about which I
kept saying I still have some problem with the title and it needs to evolve
further). And you categorically said,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>>I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the problem
to be addressed was clarified.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I want the workshop, and so I tried to clarify the issue. And some points
will naturally get debated in the process. Obviously any such clarification
cannot take the exact route you may want it to take. In fact, in the process of
such clarification/ debate some further support for the workshop did come up.
This is despite your saying after every email, starting with the first one,
that you really don’t want to debate issues. (This stance of, ‘I really
do not want to debate’, ‘I don’t have the time’ etc, is
really quite impolite to keep saying in every email while carrying on a debate,
but that’s a different matter.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In the next round of discussion, when Michael too came in, you cited an
IGC resolution to infer that we seem to agree that access is not an IG issue. You
also said that a workshop on ‘access as a right’ was ‘opposite
of our (IGC’s) stance’. You can’t expect me not to debate this
as well. I can’t understand your irritation when I debate these issues
and assertions. And then just because I ask you what is the substantive
content of DA if access is completely removed (a point of legitimate
intellectual contestation), you accuse me of playing a game with
‘obvious’ agenda. I don’t think anyone got what you are
calling as the obvious ‘objective’ of my ‘particular game’.
Why don’t you spell it out? Now that you have made the allegation, you
must substantiate it.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Why is it wrong to contest this view of access as being a non IG issue,
and in that connection try a debate on DA? This is what this list is for. And I
needed to make my case for the workshop, which you weren’t willing to go
along with unless more clarification is given.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I have a great problem about your ascribing an ulterior ‘agenda’
to me, and accusing me of ‘playing games’- and I request you come
out clearly what you mean by this. It is not a right given only to some people to
take offence (as you have to my email, for reasons I cant understand, and two
others have followed suit). I take serious offence at such ascriptions made by
you, and ask for clarification.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>And then you call my engagement as being in bad faith. Please
substantiate. Such expressions will lower the level of conversation as in the
next round the other person can be expected to use worse ascriptions. And if
there is anything in my email that make you feel justified to use such terms,
please point that out. You said I was making false caricatures, and in reply I
said you may be making false binaries. And that brought forth all the above
unacceptable references from you.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I must repeat that I have specifically asked you to either substantiate
or withdraw your allegations.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Parminder <font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, April 14, 2008 7:11
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Singh, Parminder; Governance<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [governance] Re: rights
based approach to the Internet</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=4 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Arial'>Parminder,<br>
<br>
*I specifically said you have every right to pose caricatures, and then you
accuse me of saying you don’t. <br>
*I’m sorry if suggesting you might talk to some of the people you are
caricaturing in order to understand what they actually think is insufficiently
intellectual and high level. <br>
*You offer a false binary, I question it, then you switch to another binary and
say I’m using a false binary. Neat trick.<br>
*DA on IG can address lots of things without doing non-IG issues, e.g. IG
mechanisms pertaining to core resources, technical standardization, network
security, international interconnection, e-commerce, e-contracting, networked
trade in digital goods and services, digital intellectual property,
jurisdiction and choice of law, speech and social conduct, cultural and
linguistic diversity, privacy and consumer protection, dispute resolution, as
well as larger ICT gov mechanisms that have some bearing on Internet
development and use, e.g. telecom, spectrum, etc. I’ve said this
repeatedly, you know it, and your objective in this particular game is obvious.
<br>
<br>
Not interested in spending time on conversations not conducted in good faith.
<br>
<br>
BD<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/14/08 3:02 PM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net>
wrote:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Bill<br>
<br>
>I was going to follow Meryem’s suggestion that for easier scanning
subject lines be changed to reflect the contents, but >I’m unable to
think of a focused >topical tag that captures all the bits in this
particular conversation.<br>
<br>
I have done it.<br>
<br>
>Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than
Parminder’s elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial >spaces etc.
It’s certainly an important >topic and one on which I can imagine a
well structured discussion. <br>
<br>
I suggest we have a workshop on it then. As for my commercial / non-commercial spaces
distinction, it comes from the distinction between market-based approaches and
rights-based approaches which as I point out in an earlier email, is almost the
staple of development discourse today. I used ‘commercial and social/
political (non-commercial) possibilities/ activities’ phrase because I
thought that on this list opposing market based approach to a right based
approach would find even less understanding/ acceptance. I tried to speak of
the issue in North-South neutral manner, without bringing the
‘development angle specifically’, but that’s what I really
want it to lead to. So, OK if you prefer it this way, I am speaking of market
based approach versus rights based approach to IG. Does it make sense to you
now? <br>
<br>
As to whether the access issue at all belongs to IG, or global IG, this is
indeed an interesting point. Before I argue my position on this, I wonder what
really is the substance of the ‘dev agenda in IG’ you propose if
access/ infrastructure issue is entirely taken away from it. I do not want to
look like trying to push you in a corner on this, but I am really really very
curious. What other areas and issues really constitute the substance of dev
agenda. Not the process, in which terms you always define the DA. Can there be
a process without some amount of definitiveness of the substance (substantial
issues) it serves? I myself do see a lot of non-access issues as dev agenda,
while seeing access also a centrally implicated issue in any dev agenda. Just
want to be sure there is some common ground of understanding between us on
this. APC is kind of defining its principal IG related strategy in terms of
access, so this debate does become important, when you interpret some
IGC’s resolution to mean that access just doesn’t constitute IG and
should not be discussed at the IGF.<br>
<br>
>The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right’s
implied by international human rights agreements, >but I’m skeptical
we’d get all that far with this angle.<br>
<br>
Yes, we do plan to do that. And for that purpose the CS needs to build the
initial concepts and discourse, and the initial momentum, which is partly the
intention. <br>
<br>
>*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you’ve not talked to, processes >you
weren’t involved with, etc. <br>
<br>
This is a strange assertion. Do only those who know ‘those people’
and have participated in the ‘processes’ have the right to talk
about them. Sorry, but to clarify the point, should I then say that you have no
right to speak about ‘development processes’ because you have not
been involved and are not close to the people who are involved in development
etc… I say this just to show how untenable is your above logic.<br>
<br>
>McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative orgs.<br>
<br>
Don’t know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim keeps
telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with technical
minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you agreeing with him?<br>
<br>
> You should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by >definition means that one cannot
give a damn about social empowerment etc.<br>
<br>
</span></font><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:
Arial'><br>
</span></font>I thought we were having a higher level of discussion than to be
told business people can also be good people. I have heard such retorts from
the less intellectually oriented when one discusses structural issues about
capital’s and business’s mal-influence over policies but I did not
expect it from you. <br>
<br>
> I think this is an overly totalizing view of a broad range of actors and
institutions…<br>
> wouldn’t prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
and must be changed…<br>
<br>
No, I am not doing either. Just advancing arguments regarding the limitations
of an exclusive market based approach, in trying to advocate an alternative (as
an addition/ corrective) right based approach to the Internet. This for
the purpose of persuading others about the advisability of the IGC putting its
weight behind at least opening up a discussion on this. <br>
<br>
>*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of >economic, social and
political activities >you mention.<br>
<br>
<font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Arial'><br>
</span></font>Of course it is not. Rights based approaches are not incompatible
with market based provisioning. We have right to education, to health etc in
many places while also having commercial provisioning of education, health etc
in the same area/ place. So perhaps, it not I but you who may be creating false
binaries, which I never meant in the first place. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></font></div>
<p><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> William Drake [<a
href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch%5d">mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]</a>
<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, April 14, 2008 4:10
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Governance<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] Where
are we with IGC workshops?<br>
</span></font><br>
<font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Hi,<br>
<br>
I was going to follow Meryem’s suggestion that for easier scanning
subject lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I’m unable to think
of a focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.<br>
<br>
Michael,<br>
<br>
Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder’s
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It’s certainly an
important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
rather than global). I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID,
it would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting. In those settings, the
various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both commercial
and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a rights-based
approach advanced. But since the caucus argued in its February position
statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin included the
point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn around and propose
a ws that runs opposite of our stance. The only obvious way to get around
this would be to claim the right’s implied by international human rights
agreements, but I’m skeptical we’d get all that far with this
angle.<br>
<br>
Parminder,<br>
<br>
We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on this,
so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful discussions
like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could plausibly pull
together in the next two weeks. But briefly:<br>
*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you’ve not talked to, processes you weren’t
involved with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and
administrative orgs. You of course have every right to do so, but
don’t be bummed if people are not persuaded by it. <br>
*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and political
activities you mention.<br>
*Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities. How else could they justify
engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for some).
But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns. You should
talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then decided whether
working in industry by definition means that one cannot give a damn about
social empowerment etc.<br>
*Again, I don’t know what “the present IG regime” means.
If you’re referring to the governance of core resources
specifically, sure industry has too much influence on some aspects and public
interest advocates should push for a better balance. But again I think this is
an overly totalizing view of a broad range of actors and institutions. <br>
*To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
cases where ‘structural imbalances’ are thereby clearly
identifiable, countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically
more difficult, but with good process management might be viable.) In
some cases there may not be ‘structural imbalances’ requiring
more than capacity building and some institutional reforms. It depends
what we’re talking about, I wouldn’t prejudge with a sweeping
assertion that everything sucks and must be changed, at least not if we want to
do more than talk among ourselves. The ws I said weeks ago I am
organizing as a follow up to the previous one will delve deeper into this and
I’m lining up speakers and cosponsors. <br>
<br>
The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic here
quickly. Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
consensus rather than generate dissensus? People have expressed interest
in mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that’s a plenty full
plate.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Bill <br>
<br>
On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net>
wrote:<br>
</span></font>Bill<br>
<br>
I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And I
take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and now. Is
it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially ordered on
regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than that. It is to a
good extent an industry self regulation regime, which doesn’t meet even
the canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime. <br>
<br>
>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>
What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand, and
a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other, require
different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that you
don’t agree to this proposition? That’s all is what I meant when I
said ‘anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) ….. <br>
<br>
>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.<br>
<br>
I have great problem with how ‘global digital divide’ issue was
interpreted by US, and probably form there taken to G-8’s meeting which
gave birth to DOT Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then
through UNDP and other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory
and practice in developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving
initial impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of
the present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign
roots, and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in
telecom and other IT areas. Don’t want to go into further elaboration,
but needed to mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis
and support….. So whether ‘tackling the global digital
divide’ really, and entirely, represented as you say
‘non-commercial aspects’ of the thinking that shaped present
IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.<br>
<br>
In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity, and
not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities (which are
increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less to
developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is the
basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global IG
regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the interests
of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from similar
grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to knowledge
(social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in IG if not a
structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if so, what
imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry interests/
commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental dichotomy is as you
say ‘false’?<br>
<br>
>I don’t believe there is “a” regime for IG. There
are many regimes. And there is no international regime governing
>access,<br>
<font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><br>
</span></font>Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I
understand your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime,
right. If not, ‘there being no one regime’ argument extends to dev
agenda issue as well. And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these
– and what ‘problems’ and ‘issues’ with these
regimes (and with access regime) fire your imagination of a dev agenda
since you say my caricature of the structural problem with these regimes is
false. BTW, why don’t we do an IGC workshop on ‘dev agenda in
IG’, which I am sure you want to do, and think APC also mentions in its
recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and yes, ITfC also have some views
on it. <br>
<br>
Parminder <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></font></div>
<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:
13.5pt;font-family:Arial'><br>
</span></font><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> William Drake [<a
href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch%5d">mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]</a>
<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch%5d"><mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch%5d></a>
<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Singh, Parminder; Governance<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] Where
are we with IGC workshops?<br>
</span></font><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:
Arial'><br>
</span></font><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>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>
</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>