<div>Such a broad smile engendered here. Yes from this e-desk, very interested. Do a lot with <em>rights and duties</em>* formulations, a particular fun thing in law school. If all that workload was fun.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks Michael, Parminder, <em>et al.</em> Lead the way in the new WG.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>:) LDMF.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>P.S.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>* With particularity here, two very prominent flavors one often encounters: </div>
<div> </div>
<div>(1) <u>Rights</u> have <u>Duties</u> that come with Rights (same actor); </div>
<div> </div>
<div>(2) Our <u>Rights</u> impose <u>Duties</u> on Others (n-actors) - (not so comfortable <em>vice versa</em> - Others' Rights impose Duties on Us). !!!<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/16/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Gurstein</b> <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div>
<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"></font></font></span></p></div>
<div></div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff">A very elegant formulation! Thanks very much Linda.</font></span></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span></span></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff">BTW, I can see the beginnings of a most interesting and fruitful Workshop discussion already emerging in our back and forth on this list. </font></span></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff"></font></span></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff">And yes, thank you for the suggestion Parminder, I'm willing to (co?) co-ordinate the Working Group towards a "Right to the Internet" Workshop at the IGF should such be agreed to within this forum.</font></span></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span></span></font></font> </div><span class="sg">
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff">MG</font></span></font></font></div></span>
<div><span class="e" id="q_119584229fe039a5_2">
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span></span></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span></span></font></font> </div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font size="2"><span> </span>-----Original Message-----<br><b>From:</b> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2@gmail.com" target="_blank">ldmisekfalkoff.2@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2@gmail.com" target="_blank">ldmisekfalkoff.2@gmail.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>linda misek-falkoff<br>
<b>Sent:</b> April 16, 2008 2:35 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Parminder<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet<br>
<br></font></font></div>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div>Greetings,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And on the matter of "given entitities", it seems likely that some sort of <em>jurisprudence</em> (just in the sense what seems fair and what seems possible) may well underlie claims of what is due all persons in a culture or pan-culture. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>Jurisprudence</em> usually attaches, one might say, to an <em>ontology</em> - a <em>belief system</em> surrounding what is posited as existing. Yes, that is a rough sketch.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But it is interesting to think of <em>rights and dut</em>ies in terms of what exists, that is believed to exist, or claimed to exist.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Since some may or do argue for a difference between what natively exists such as water and what is built such as a communications network,. it may be useful to have a foundational reference e.g. to Maslow's hierarchy of motivating factors (needs).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here is a colorful if undetailed representation:</div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm" target="_blank">http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>We might say the present and ongoing discussion favors seeing the t Internet as at the basic subsistence level ("Survival") rather than the proportional (luxury?) "level" of self-actualization. I use the phrase "luxury" with caution here, having worked with Maslow and I think he did not like that word, all levels in his model being ostensibly of equal value though at different stages of developing systems. .</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Respectfully and with very best wishes, LDMF. </div><span></span>
<div>
<div><span><font size="2">- Show quoted text -</font></span></div><span>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/14/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Parminder</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</span> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">> In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the<br>need to state that there is a "Right to the Internet".<br>
<br><br><br>Yes. 'Right to the Internet' is the precise statement of the issue, and we<br>think it is worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my assertion goes<br>beyond access and right 'to' the Internet, where Internet is considered as a<br>
given entity, not in itself subject to social and political construction,<br>and therefore to politics and policy. I think the construction of what the<br>Internet is, in all its layers - logical, content, applications etc (and not<br>
only the infrastructural layer which provided 'access' to this Internet) -<br>itself is as much an issue and space of rights as it is of market based<br>exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen.<br>
<br><br><br>Thus 'right to the Internet' should include certain rights to what is 'on'<br>the Internet, and also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf<br>co-constructivism in education). All this implies a very different basis of<br>
IG regime than what we see today. We are looking at a rights based approach<br>to the Internet (not just to access but to the whole of the Internet) rather<br>than a market based approach. And this distinction between these two<br>
approaches is almost the staple of development discourse today. And to move<br>towards such an approach, and the requisite IG regime, we need to<br>deconstruct the basis of the present regime, and the predominant interests<br>
it represents, and those it excludes, or under-serves.<span></span> <br><br><br><br><br><br>Parminder<br><br><br><br>_____<br><br>From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:57 PM<br>To: <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; 'William Drake'; 'Singh, Parminder'<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?<br><br><br><br>Bill and all,<br><br><br><br>I'll chime in a bit here as well... The early history of the Internet in<br>Developed Countries (I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours for<br>
what happened in Canada) is a tangled one in terms of its ultimate<br>directions and to a considerable degree it depended on who you talked to or<br>where you were standing as to which set of priorities seemed uppermost...<br>
But that I think is a side issue.<br><br><br><br>The question that I initially presented was whether or not from a public<br>policy perspective the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a fundamental<br>and necessary service i.e. as a counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the<br>
opportunity for democratic participation, and so on. This came from a<br>reference to statements by Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such<br>a service and that this should be one of the broader presuppostions (in<br>
Sweden) underlying decision making around other areas of public policy and<br>programmes.<br><br><br><br>In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the need<br>to state that there is a "Right to the Internet" and not simply "Rights<br>
concerning the Internet" . If it could be argued/established/promulgated<br>that there is a "Right to the Internet" (understood in a very broad sense)<br>this would have quite a significant effect in various countries including my<br>
own (and your own as well I think) where for example, the government has<span></span> <br>basically ceded to the private sector a determination of whether (based on<br>the principles "of the market") or not a specific individual, community or<br>
region should have a reasonable (fair and equitable) means to achieve access<br>to the Internet.<br><br><br><br>(FWIW I think as Parminder said some time ago, this may be THE fundamental<br>CS issue in the context of Internet Governance... As I've indicated in this<br>
space on a number of occasions to my mind and from where I sit with respect<br>to the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other issues are for most ICT4D<br>users on the ground either derivative of this fundamental question or simply<br>
of a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...<br><br><br><br>MG<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: William Drake [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>]<br>
Sent: April 13, 2008 3:32 AM<br>To: Singh, Parminder; Governance<br>Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?<br><br>Hi Parminder,<br><br>There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice<br>
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<br>seen in the Clinton era. The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader<br>
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,<br>e.g. tackling the global digital divide. I knew the staff involved---Gore's<br>people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they<br>
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and<br>CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you're offering a caricature of<br>the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the<br>
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the<br>NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN<span></span> <br>launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part<br>
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of<br>the ITU). And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to<br>mobilize ITAA et al doesn't define "how the net was seen" in the US or<br>
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<br>there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and<br>
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we've been here before). And per the<br>above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it's purely commercial to<br>the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy. Hence,<br>
re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require<br>different governance and policy approaches," nope, not me, I think the issue<br>is misconstructed.<br><br>Friendly disagreement, let's agree to disagree rather than debating it ad<br>
infinitum. I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the<br>problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the<br>mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the "internationalization" ws and on<br>
and on. That said, if there's lots of support for this from others besides<br>you, I fine, I'll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would<br>again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of<br>
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the<br>sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position<br>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<br>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<span></span> <br>operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then<br>drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting<br>
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" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<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>Bill, I am not completely happy with the present title but for<br>clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael<br>
Gurstein of 17th May, which I quote.<br><br>"However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public<br>responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of<br>broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should<br>
taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information<br>particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax<br>on those least able to pay?)"<br><br>"I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet<br>
Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet<br>Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a<br>privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the<span></span> <br>
"governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with<br>the various "governance" implications that would flow from this."<br><br>"Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance<br>
(understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,<br>supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with<br>governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that<br>
flow from this."<br><br>(ends)<br><br>Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive<br>from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy<br>framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied<br>
direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,<br>but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of<br>activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet<br>
policy frameworks.<br><br>Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.<br>documents on US's idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its<br>governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an<br>
view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key<br>infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including<br>governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its<br>
governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil<br>society's and 'progressive groups' opposition to the present regime of IG<br>arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how<br>
transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they<br>undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the<br>present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the<br>
manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within<br>civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG<span></span> <br>institutions. Ok, I may be digressing a bit, but this line of argument does<br>
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<br>Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is<br>now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity,<br>
and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an<br>infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would<br>agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance<br>
and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say<br>'anyone will agree', because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial<br>and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for<br>
all/ most sectors of social activity.)<br><br>I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG<br>related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think<br>it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this<br>
workshop.<br><br>Parminder<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: William Drake [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>]<br>
<mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>%5d><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<span></span> <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" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:michael_leibrandt@web.de" target="_blank">michael_leibrandt@web.de</a>> 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<span></span> <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<span></span> <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<span></span> <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>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br><br><br>***********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>Director, Project on the Information<br>Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<br>Graduate Institute of International and<br>Development Studies<br>
Geneva, Switzerland<br>william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<br>***********************************************************<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank"><span></span> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</blockquote><br><br clear="all"><br></span></div>-- <br>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff<br><font size="1">*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.<br>Individual e-post.<br>For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations (CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].<br>
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations education, values, and technical committees;<br>Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.<br>Other Affiliations on Request.<br>
</font>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">n 4/14/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Parminder</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">> In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the<br>need to state that there is a "Right to the Internet".<br>
<br><br><br>Yes. 'Right to the Internet' is the precise statement of the issue, and we<br>think it is worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my assertion goes<br>beyond access and right 'to' the Internet, where Internet is considered as a<br>
given entity, not in itself subject to social and political construction,<br>and therefore to politics and policy. I think the construction of what the<br>Internet is, in all its layers - logical, content, applications etc (and not<br>
only the infrastructural layer which provided 'access' to this Internet) -<br>itself is as much an issue and space of rights as it is of market based<br>exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen.<br>
<br><br><br>Thus 'right to the Internet' should include certain rights to what is 'on'<br>the Internet, and also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf<br>co-constructivism in education). All this implies a very different basis of<br>
IG regime than what we see today. We are looking at a rights based approach<br>to the Internet (not just to access but to the whole of the Internet) rather<br>than a market based approach. And this distinction between these two<br>
approaches is almost the staple of development discourse today. And to move<br>towards such an approach, and the requisite IG regime, we need to<br>deconstruct the basis of the present regime, and the predominant interests<br>
it represents, and those it excludes, or under-serves.<br><br><br><br><br><br>Parminder<br><br><br><br>_____<br><br>From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:57 PM<br>To: <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; 'William Drake'; 'Singh, Parminder'<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?<br><br><br><br>Bill and all,<br><br><br><br>I'll chime in a bit here as well... The early history of the Internet in<br>Developed Countries (I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours for<br>
what happened in Canada) is a tangled one in terms of its ultimate<br>directions and to a considerable degree it depended on who you talked to or<br>where you were standing as to which set of priorities seemed uppermost...<br>
But that I think is a side issue.<br><br><br><br>The question that I initially presented was whether or not from a public<br>policy perspective the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a fundamental<br>and necessary service i.e. as a counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the<br>
opportunity for democratic participation, and so on. This came from a<br>reference to statements by Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such<br>a service and that this should be one of the broader presuppostions (in<br>
Sweden) underlying decision making around other areas of public policy and<br>programmes.<br><br><br><br>In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the need<br>to state that there is a "Right to the Internet" and not simply "Rights<br>
concerning the Internet" . If it could be argued/established/promulgated<br>that there is a "Right to the Internet" (understood in a very broad sense)<br>this would have quite a significant effect in various countries including my<br>
own (and your own as well I think) where for example, the government has<br>basically ceded to the private sector a determination of whether (based on<br>the principles "of the market") or not a specific individual, community or<br>
region should have a reasonable (fair and equitable) means to achieve access<br>to the Internet.<br><br><br><br>(FWIW I think as Parminder said some time ago, this may be THE fundamental<br>CS issue in the context of Internet Governance... As I've indicated in this<br>
space on a number of occasions to my mind and from where I sit with respect<br>to the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other issues are for most ICT4D<br>users on the ground either derivative of this fundamental question or simply<br>
of a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...<br><br><br><br>MG<br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: William Drake [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>]<br>
Sent: April 13, 2008 3:32 AM<br>To: Singh, Parminder; Governance<br>Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?<br><br>Hi Parminder,<br><br>There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice<br>
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<br>seen in the Clinton era. The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader<br>
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,<br>e.g. tackling the global digital divide. I knew the staff involved---Gore's<br>people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they<br>
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and<br>CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you're offering a caricature of<br>the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the<br>
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the<br>NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN<br>launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part<br>
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of<br>the ITU). And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to<br>mobilize ITAA et al doesn't define "how the net was seen" in the US or<br>
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<br>there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and<br>
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we've been here before). And per the<br>above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it's purely commercial to<br>the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy. Hence,<br>
re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require<br>different governance and policy approaches," nope, not me, I think the issue<br>is misconstructed.<br><br>Friendly disagreement, let's agree to disagree rather than debating it ad<br>
infinitum. I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the<br>problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the<br>mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the "internationalization" ws and on<br>
and on. That said, if there's lots of support for this from others besides<br>you, I fine, I'll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would<br>again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of<br>
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the<br>sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position<br>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<br>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<br>operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then<br>drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting<br>
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" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<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>Bill, I am not completely happy with the present title but for<br>clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael<br>
Gurstein of 17th May, which I quote.<br><br>"However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public<br>responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of<br>broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should<br>
taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information<br>particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax<br>on those least able to pay?)"<br><br>"I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet<br>
Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet<br>Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a<br>privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the<br>
"governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with<br>the various "governance" implications that would flow from this."<br><br>"Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance<br>
(understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,<br>supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with<br>governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that<br>
flow from this."<br><br>(ends)<br><br>Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive<br>from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy<br>framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied<br>
direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,<br>but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of<br>activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet<br>
policy frameworks.<br><br>Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.<br>documents on US's idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its<br>governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an<br>
view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key<br>infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including<br>governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its<br>
governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil<br>society's and 'progressive groups' opposition to the present regime of IG<br>arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how<br>
transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they<br>undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the<br>present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the<br>
manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within<br>civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG<br>institutions. Ok, I may be digressing a bit, but this line of argument does<br>
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<br>Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is<br>now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity,<br>
and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an<br>infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would<br>agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance<br>
and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say<br>'anyone will agree', because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial<br>and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for<br>
all/ most sectors of social activity.)<br><br>I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG<br>related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think<br>it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this<br>
workshop.<br><br>Parminder<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: William Drake [mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>]<br>
<mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>%5d><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" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:michael_leibrandt@web.de" target="_blank">michael_leibrandt@web.de</a>> 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>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br><br><br>***********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>Director, Project on the Information<br>Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<br>Graduate Institute of International and<br>Development Studies<br>
Geneva, Switzerland<br>william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<br>***********************************************************<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</blockquote><br><br clear="all">t). </blockquote></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br><br>-- <br>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff<br>*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.<br>Individual e-post.<br>For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations (CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].<br>
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations education, values, and technical committees;<br>Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.<br>Other Affiliations on Request.<br>