<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3314" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144321717-16042008><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
class=144321717-16042008></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144321717-16042008><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 class=144321717-16042008><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144321717-16042008><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
class=144321717-16042008></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144321717-16042008><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff>MG</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144321717-16042008></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144321717-16042008></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144321717-16042008> </SPAN>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
ldmisekfalkoff.2@gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2@gmail.com] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>linda misek-falkoff<BR><B>Sent:</B> April 16, 2008 2:35 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
governance@lists.cpsr.org; Parminder<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] rights
based approach to the Internet<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<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 class=ea><SPAN id=e_1195693587b1d623_1><FONT size=2>- Show quoted text
-</FONT></SPAN></DIV><SPAN class=e id=q_1195693587b1d623_1>
<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
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">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
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</A>]<BR>Sent: Sunday,
April 13, 2008 10:57 PM<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">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
href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">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
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">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
href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</A>]<BR><mailto:<A
href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">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
href="mailto:michael_leibrandt@web.de">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
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>>
To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR>> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><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><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
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To
be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><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><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR
clear=all>t). </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>