<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3314" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008>Bill,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=663355715-14042008>I've
been somewhat neutral on whether or not there should be a workshop on Internet
Rights or in Parminder's formulation "Commercial or
Non-Commercial".</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008>However, I'd like to make a few points in response to
your note below...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008> * I'm not sure that "Right to the
Internet" is the same as "access as a right"... I've spent a lot of my time in
the last number of years arguing that there is a difference between "Internet
access" as a "Right" i.e. the means to download and view; and "Internet use" as
a right i.e. the means to make "effective use" of the Internet for the
range of individual, community and other applications/uses/opportunities which
the Internet presents. So to my mind at least a WS on Right to the
Internet goes rather broader than simply issues of "access" and "availability"
although of course those are implied...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008> * while "access" is for the most
part the domain of national and regional policies many of the multilateral and
bilateral development oriented agencies are active in this area and so
discussion on global regimes would not be out of line (guidelines, priorities,
standards etc.)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><SPAN class=663355715-14042008><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> * finally it seems to me that the three areas
which you see as being of most direct interest i.e. "mandate,
internationalization, and jurisdiction" while being of direct concern to those
with a non-governmental (mostly I would suggest an "academic" i.e. critical but
not normative) concern in the "governance" area are not to my mind at
least, of that much direct relevance to conventional and broadly based "Civil
Society" (understood as "normative") concerns.
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT><SPAN class=663355715-14042008><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT><SPAN class=663355715-14042008><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>From a specifically and if you want "narrowly" Civil Society
perspective, a "Workshop on Right to the Internet" is precisely what CS should
be advocating as only through an acceptance of this approach is it possible to
develop a consistent and Civil Society anchored perspective (rather
than "technical" or "academic") on any of the other issues. (I'm afraid
that this takes us full circle back to the discussion on the nature of Civil
Society but what else can one expect in a discussion of and by Civil Society
where the intention is to articulate a perwspective in a specific subject matter
domain where there is not as yet any clearly articulated normative
framework.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008>MG</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=663355715-14042008> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <BR><B>Sent:</B> April
14, 2008 3:40 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Governance<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance]
Where are we with IGC workshops?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT face=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.<SPAN
class=663355715-14042008><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN class=663355715-14042008> </SPAN><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><BR></DIV></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">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=#000080><BR></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 <BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#000080><FONT
size=2><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT
face=Arial><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18px"></SPAN></FONT>
<P align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Tahoma><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13px"><B>From:</B>
William Drake [<A
href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]">mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]</A>
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Singh,
Parminder; Governance<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Where are we with
IGC workshops?<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 16px"><BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 17px">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></SPAN></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>