[bestbits] Why? Lessons from the Internet Mercantile Protocol listserv and yet another IGC Failure to Communicate

[Lee W McKnight]

Wolfgang, and kind of echoing George and Nick's comments...

Your as usual astute commentary reminds me of an - old story, which I fail to keep short below.  But yes there are points/morals of my story.

Some may just wish to delete/ignore...which is of course everyone's prerogative.

Once upon a time..

in the late 80'/early 90's:  An open email listserv was set up to discuss an 'Internet Mercantile Protocol.' Anyone interested in doing so could self-subscribe to the lightly moderated list. At that time, NSFNET by which pre-commercial Internet backbone was interconnected, was governed per USG rules by an Acceptable Use Policy prohibiting commercial business on the increasing global non-profit research and education network. NSFNET and its AUP were due to end 94/95.  The Internet Mercantile Protocol listerv was set up to address the question of what could be done to define open online, trusted, and secure transaction procedures and processes.

To save the day for an Internet free of commercial taint, several - enthusiastic - self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists joined the IMP list. They announced they were there expressly to disrupt any further meaningful discussions of what at that point were just hypothetical discussions of a non-existent Internet Mercantile Protocol. 

So to be clear, the anarcho-syndicalists were polite enough to announce their plans up front. : ).  Their clearly stated purpose  was to - prevent - commercialization of the Internet, by preventing development of protocols/standards for transactions. Within a few months, the IMP list descended into - just noise. 

Moral of the story: Anarcho-syndicalists can win, no IMP was ever developed.  

Post-moral of the the story observation: Well, except for the minor (? ; ) detail...that Internet Commerce came anyway. With standards developed in typically, less open fora, than that established by the IMP listserv. Where civil society input was more difficult to embed, than it might otherwise have been if the IMP were permitted to attempt to serve both public and private interests in the emergence of -global , national, and local  - online commerce. One might argue. I stayed on the list for several more years, and was always amused when a - newbie - stumbled upon it, joined, and then sent a message into the...virtual wild west....where the anarcho-syndicalists of the early net ruled. The newbies were promptly shouted down, if they were responded to at all.  After a couple years there seemed to be noone left on the IMP list but me and...several of my anarcho-syndicalist friends and colleagues. 

True moral of the story: The IMP listserv died completely, just about the time ecommerce started to take off for real.  So it is indeed true, back in the day, the future commercial Internet, in a state of nature, was ruled for a time by anarcho-syndicalists, who came to dominate the Internet Mercantile Protocol listserv.  Since most everyone else save this sociologically curious prof, had long fled that curious scene.   Congrats to them - on their - victory?  : )

My comments/suggestions for IGCers, not meaning offense to anyone....and please recall I was the longest lasting friend/colleague of the original anarcho-syndicalists fighting the good fight for the public interest on an increasingly commercial net:  

1) In an alternate or perhaps this universe, maybe well-meaning CS folks could be more clever and manage to not not drive even more of the - real business - of maintaining and extending the global net of nets into even more closed fora and processes, variously ruled by governments and/or firms.   

2) Since in most of those fora, CS multi-stakeholders, however defined, are by design without seats at the table; and alternate forms of democratic governance are unlikely to be found either.  

Or am I hopelessly naive, and history must repeat itself - especially when the history is of a farce? I should just get more popcorn and enjoy this sequel? : (  (No offense to anyone on the list, but the original anarcho-syndicalists were way -way - more entertaining than much of what passes for debate these days on the IGC listserv : )

Final plea/theoretical observation:

 Us CS self-proclaimed leaders and individual activists, on this list and others, just like those self-proclaimed anarcho-syndicalists back in the day, admittedly imperfectly represent also (some of) the broader interests of individuals both already on, and the many more not yet able to even access the Facebook-special net of nets.  Defining this reality in political theory and practice terms, beyond and behind multi-stakeholderism is the not always glorious history of corporatism, and neo-corporatism which naturally some theorists/advocates would rather not remind folks of.  But the generally more positive histories of (some) standards organizations and various expert commissions and similar bodies defined and abiding with democratic governance rules are also out there to point to; which must serve the public interest or they violate their legal mandates. 

So yes they, and we, must exist in a democratic context, and serve the public interest - both however ill-defined.  By equally theoretically mushy multi-stakeholder processes.

But to expect the average citizen/voter to - ever - get excited about all the minutia needed to keep the net up and reliable 24/7 X 365 X forever - is unrealistic.  Netheads and code jockeys still rule what they must, as do IP rightsholders, and governments, and...so on.   And, because it is indeed about among other things the money, many many businesses cannot afford to not have seats at the tables. 

Are we surprised? Is any of this news? 

We can safely assume many more private Internets/walled gardens are in all of our futures, as well as in the future of the next couple Billion; absent concerted actions such as those just taken re Facebook's Internet.org , Zuckerberg's own private net of nets. In my opinion, in the coming 5G/Future Internet of Things world(s) that is 100% guaranteed. 

If CS and fellow multi-stakeholders cannot talk among themselves without the - noise level - which has this list rivaling the IMP in its level of epic - failure to communicate - then...can't we all just get along? Ok never mind, guess not : (

Lee

PS: To put it more bluntly and gloomily, how long til this list, which often seems to be but a faint echo of its rather illustrious past but which now - practically speaking, nothing can be done - descends to point it joins the IMP in the dead listerv 'could have been a contender' virtual Hall of Fame for those (not) shaping the Internet's ongoing evolution?   Except to tip cap to our heroic moderators, Ian Peter and colleagues trying to manage to at least nominate a few good folks to a few helpful roles.  Final irony: this is thanks entirely to Avri and the early importation by IGC  of classic IETF multistakeholder processes for randomly fair and balanced nomcoms ; )




________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:01 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Subject: [governance] Why?

Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the discussion on this list is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do not listen" and "I am right and you are wrong". Why this civil society network, which once played an important role in policy development in the WSIS process, is unable to look forward where the real challenges are with the forthcoming WSIS 10+ processes and concentrate on substance and how to reach rough consensus? Why people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told us a quarter of a century ago in his robustness princple: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not remember the language of the CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?

The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and old warriors have overtaken the discussion.

My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will encourage a new generation of younger civil society people who feel more committed to the substance of real civil society activities and do not waste the limited resources and energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG proposal for a multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance (2005) was a compromise between "governmental leadership" (China) and private sector leadership (USA)and it opened the door for civil society to become an inclusive part of the process. This was a boig achievement of that time and an opportunity. It is now up to the next generation of civil society activists to build on this oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be destroyed.

Wolfgang




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 19.05.2015 14:50
An: David Cake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org
Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015



On Tuesday 19 May 2015 03:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> My first reaction is that this seems to be a category error. A multi
> stakeholder perspective is a description of how a workshop should be
> constructed, and public interest a description of its content.

David
If you are still speaking of the same thing about which Peng Hwa and I
were arguing, you are simply 'factually' wrong. The call for proposals
spoke of 'multistakeholder perspective' with regard to content and not
structure....

The precise language was "We now welcome proposals for pre-events or
main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an
inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective....."

I asked for "...incorporating a multistakeholder perspective" to be
replaced by "incorporating a public interest perspective".   It was
always about the content of the workshop proposal and not the structure
of workshop.

I have been closely involved with the IGF, including its management
structures, and know well what is meant by a multistakeholder
'structure' of a workshop.

But of course one can now get into philosophical discussions about a
certain sameness and continuity between structure and content. Please
lets not do it and stick to the specific context.  (More below)


> One does not substitute for the other because they aren't the same
> thing. Just as you couldn't claim a workshop was civil society only if
> it was filled with commercial operators talking about their NGO
> customers. Structure and composition of a workshop are different. And
> frankly, Parminder, I'd be surprised if you couldn't put together a
> multi-stakeholder workshop comprised entirely of sceptics of
> multistakeholderism, which to my mind would incorporate a
> 'multistakeholder perspective'.
>
> That said, I'm going to agree with Peng Hwa that 'public interest' is
> a problematic term.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) claiming that  'public
interest is a problematic term' (especially when said at the same time
as claiming that multistakeholderism is not) and (2) saying that
'determination of what is public interest in a given context is never
easy, or even a problematic thing'. If determination of what constitutes
public interest in a given context was not problematic we will not need
politics and democracy. The latter institutions exist almost entirely to
obtain a good and fair determination of what is pulbic interest, which
they are still never able to do to everyone's satisfaction. So please do
not confuse between 'public interest being a problematic term' and
'determination of what is public interest in any given context being
problematic'.


> The IP lobby are just one example of a group who, with some skill and
> apparent sincerity, will strongly argue that advancing the relative
> power of their narrow set of interests is also in the public interest
> (the public surely wants to combat the various evils strengthened by
> counterfeiting, they say). Governments always justify calls for
> increased censorship and surveillance on public interest grounds (the
> public must be protected from terrorism, drug smuggling, and
> immorality). And you'd probably be quite appalled if you saw the uses
> to which the concept has been put within ICANN, such as 'Public
> Interest Commitments' taken on by many new GTLDs that commit them to
> lobbyist led expansion of the rights of large trademark holders.
> Almost every serious lobby group can manage the necessary mental
> gymnastics to argue that they act in the public interest, and claiming
> to act in the public interest is the go to strategy if you want to
> justify overruling a community or consensus policy to favour your
> lobby group.
>
> This isn't to say that a prolonged look at the issue of the public
> interest - some serious examination of what relatively object ways we
> have to determine it, or what processes lead to a relatively consensus
> understanding of we determine public interest, wouldn't be very
> valuable. A global process that looked at this idea would be great. I
> think the current situation, where the concept is used to justify all
> sorts of policies but is defined loosely or informally, is very
> problematic. In this respect I agree with Parminder that it merits
> much deeper discussion.

Coming to the context of the series of congresses on 'Intellectual
property and public interest', here is the list of participants
<http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Participants-Handout1.pdf>of
the 2011 Congress . Just one big business participant - Google among
scores and scores others. And none in program committee, or among the
hosing group or funders (except one, again Google, which is certainly an
oddity, perhaps explainable but wont go there right now) . No way to me
this looks like a multistakeholder or MS conference, as we have come to
understand the term in the Internet governance space.
/*
*//*So, the question is why when we are considering policy issues or
public interest in the Intellectual Property space, we rely on an
assemblage *only* and *exclusively* of what can clearly be seen as
public interest actors, and specifically exclude vested interests,
(called stakeholders in the MS terminology), determination of policies
or of public interest in the Internet governance space requires an equal
participation of big business? Maybe you or any other MSist here will
like to answer this key question.*/

As I said in my last email , I await putting forward of some Internet
exceptional-ism arguments, about how IG is more expertise intensive
(more than Intellectual Property or IP ??), or more private sector based
(more than IP ??) or is more bottom up....... They clearly do not hold,
but maybe some of you may want to flog them...
>
> But thinking of public interest as in some way opposed to, or distinct
> from, multistakeholderism is a misguided position that is only going
> to lead to a shallow and disappointing discussion.

David, here you are turning the issue on its head , let me say, in
somewhat disingenuous way. In arguing with APrIGF, it is not that I
proposed 'dont use the MS word but use only public interest'. No, it
were they who said, we wont use the pulbic interest word because it is
not clear or is problematic. And of course youd remember in the recent
UNESCO meeting; we did not say, pull out the MS word, we just said, also
use the 'democratic' word: 'they' said, no 'democratic' cannot be used
because it has baggage, while the MS word will stay (which they did not
see as carrying any baggage).

The problem is not about promoting multi-stakeholder participation. The
problem is promoting a certain kind of MSism while at the same time
decrying 'public interest (as an 'unclear problematic term'), democracy
(as carrying baggage) and so on.....

Now if you still do not see here a deliberate and strongly-invested
process of building a post-democratic (and anti-democratic) vocabulary,
theory and practice, then you just refuse to see it, about which I cant
do much.

parminder

>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17 May 2015, at 3:46 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual
>> Property and the Public Interest' !
>>
>> Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder
>> Interest' ?
>>
>> You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa,
>> head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly
>> argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but
>> multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish.
>>
>> The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for
>> the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop
>> proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I
>> suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion
>> was not accepted.  So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved
>> with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a
>> problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective'
>> or interest is a positive political evolution over it!
>>
>> Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it
>> is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area
>> are either a silent or active accomplices.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike
>> intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing,
>> and therefore its governance has to be different....  Well, lets
>> admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent
>> to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more
>> bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and
>> property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic
>> fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as
>> well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that
>> are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil
>> society will have to answer to history.
>>
>> Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public
>> interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for
>> the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What
>> really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG
>> space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest
>> actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help
>> in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'.
>>
>> Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very
>> importanr congress.
>>
>> In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress
>> on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those
>> who may be interested.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote:
>>> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and Public Interest.
>>>
>>> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think
>>> might be interested.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Geetha.
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Swaraj Barooah
>>> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM
>>> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual
>>> Property and the Public Interest, 2015
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth
>>> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public
>>> Interest ("Global Congress"). The theme for this year's Congress will be
>>> "Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS." We are now inviting
>>> applications to participate in the Congress, including session
>>> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for
>>> panels and workshops.
>>>
>>> The application form is available now at
>>> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this
>>> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of
>>> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are
>>> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.
>>>
>>> Deadlines
>>>
>>> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be
>>> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st
>>> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to
>>> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional
>>> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).
>>>
>>> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper
>>> submissions will close on November 1st.
>>>
>>> Application Information
>>>
>>> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host
>>> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in
>>> the form.
>>>
>>> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as
>>> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or
>>> any other relevant information provided by the applicant.
>>>
>>> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the
>>> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing
>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes
>>>
>>> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is
>>> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy
>>> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest
>>> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of
>>> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to
>>> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress
>>> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and
>>> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be
>>> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest
>>> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property
>>> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most
>>> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property
>>> policy can best serve the public interest.
>>>
>>> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil
>>> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together
>>> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual
>>> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but
>>> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes.
>>> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in
>>> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.
>>>
>>> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two
>>> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and
>>> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce
>>> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research
>>> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and
>>> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices;
>>> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local
>>> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda;
>>> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and
>>> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects
>>> of IP policy and practice.
>>>
>>> Participation Opportunities
>>>
>>> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of
>>> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of
>>> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions,
>>> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.
>>>
>>> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access
>>> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development.
>>>
>>> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in
>>> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such
>>> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the
>>> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress
>>> .
>>>
>>> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference
>>> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share
>>> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the
>>> aforementioned sessions.
>>>
>>> The application form for participation is available now
>>> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this
>>> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or
>>> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:globalcongress2015 at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> Organisation
>>>
>>> The Centre for Internet and Society <http://cis-india.org/>serves as the
>>> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and
>>> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University,
>>> Delhi <http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/>.
>>>
>>> The implementing partners arethe <http://www.openair.org.za/>American
>>> Assembly <http://americanassembly.org/>at Columbia University in New
>>> York,Open A.I.R <http://www.openair.org.za/>., and theProgram on
>>> Information Justice and Intellectual Property <http://www.pijip.org/>at
>>> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the organizing committee,
>>>
>>> Swaraj Barooah
>>>
>>> Swaraj Paul Barooah
>>> Project Manager, "Global Congress"
>>> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015)
>>>
>>> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com <http://SpicyIP.com> <http://SpicyIP.com>
>>> Founder, Know-GAP
>>> Twitter: @swarajpb
>>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits