<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>Message</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=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>></span></font><font size=2 color=blue
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> 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".</span></font><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>
<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Yes. ‘Right to the Internet’
is the precise statement of the issue, and we think it is worthy of a workshop discussion.
However, my assertion goes beyond access and right ‘to’ the
Internet, where Internet is considered as a given entity, not in itself subject
to social and political construction, and therefore to politics and policy. I
think the construction of what the Internet is, in all its layers - logical,
content, applications etc (and not only the infrastructural layer which
provided ‘access’ to this Internet) - itself is as much an issue and
space of rights as it is of market based exchange, which is how it is at
present pre-dominantly seen. <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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thus ‘right to the Internet’ should
include certain rights to what is ‘on’ the Internet, and also to
own and co-construct the Internet (cf co-constructivism in education). All this
implies a very different basis of IG regime than what we see today. We are
looking at a rights based approach to the Internet (not just to access but to
the whole of the Internet) rather than a market based approach. And this
distinction between these two approaches is almost the staple of development
discourse today. And to move towards such an approach, and the requisite IG regime,
we need to deconstruct the basis of the present regime, and the predominant
interests it represents, and those it excludes, or under-serves. <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>
<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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'> Michael Gurstein
[mailto:gurstein@gmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:57
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> governance@lists.cpsr.org;
'William Drake'; 'Singh, Parminder'<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>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Bill and all,</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>(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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>MG </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'> -----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> April 13, 2008 3:32 AM<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>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<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:13.5pt'><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>
***********************************************************<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>