<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=iso-8859-1">
<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: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?</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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{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'>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. <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'>>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.<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'>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) ….. <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'>>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><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.<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'>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’?<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 don’t believe there is “a” regime for IG.
There are many regimes. And there is no international regime
governing >access,<font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></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'>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. <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 <o:p></o:p></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> 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?</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'>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:</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'>> >> 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 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>“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>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>
<font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: William Drake [<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch%5d">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></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=4 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Arial'><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>
***********************************************************</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>