[governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions"

[William Drake]

Hi,

I've deleted MMWG from the cc here, cross-posting filling my box.

I strongly agree with the thrust of Seiiti's message.  While this list was
the first place to seriously discuss the case for a broad definition of IG,
as was eventually embraced in the Tunis Agenda, the conversation usually
defaults back to deconstructing the internal machinations of ICANN, and
everything else slips from view.  Given the unresolved oversight fight in
WSIS and the Tunis call for a new globally applicable policy principles and
enhanced cooperation on core resources, one imagines the IGF will end up
focusing on this as well in the near-term.  This is unquestionably key, but
at the same time, there is a lot going on in other issue-areas and
cooperative mechanisms that we're not talking about, but that is really
important to the future evolution of the net.

Just to note one example, there is an enormous amount of work going on among
governments, telcos, manufacturers and others, most notably but not only in
the ITU, under the rubric of 'Next Generation Networks' that is designed to
promote shared rules and programs on surveillance (oops, sorry, security and
trust) and differentiated levels of service in a convergent environment.
This mirrors major developments happening at the national level across the
OECD region and probably beyond.  In the US context, in addition what the
FCC's been doing in its IP-enabled services proceeding, there's been some
potentially important legislative action.  For example, to strengthen
cyberstalking prosecution tools, the recently passed reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act amends the Communications Act of America by
expanding the definition of a telecommunications device to cover any device
or software that uses the Internet, including VOIP.  This could place a big
chunk of the net environment under US telecom 'oversight' and strengthen the
drive in the International Law Enforcement Telecom Seminar and elsewhere to
mandate the build-in of forensics capabilities, etc.  Companies like
Verisign are very much at the center of all this, but we only talk about the
DNS side of their houses.

The IGF is supposed to focus inter alia on cross-cutting issues that don't
fall neatly within the scope of other bodies, and to promote the application
of the Geneva principles (multilateral, multistakeholder, transparent,
democratic) in such bodies.  If CS doesn't bother to promote these core
parts of the mandate, probably they will fall off the table.  That'd be
unfortunate, and we could all pay for it in spades down the line.

Best,

Bill




> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Seiiti Arata
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:22 AM
> To: Vittorio Bertola
> Cc: Governance Caucus; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions"
>
>
> Vittorio, friends,
>
> Now that the time to hurry up and finish our drafts for the WSIS
> process has passed and we have recovered from New Year celebrations
> (including Chinese and Orthodox Russian calendars), I think this is an
> appropriate time to raise a controversial point with less risk of
> "losing focus" (and I think that as Diplo's event is coming just
> before the open consultations, this is actually to get more theorical
> once again):
>
> I do agree with you that the IGF tends (happily) to take IG
> discussions beyond the narrow names-and-numbers level. But we must
> also take into account that other technical decisions have high policy
> impact, such as protocols and standards setting (de facto and also
> formal official ones).
>
> Some of these are still developed by the IETF (which may now need to
> receive extra visibility and a higher governance level), but others
> are also being imposed by cable broadband ISPs, which limit many
> freedoms of the users (see, e.g. Michael Geist article Towards a
> Two-Tier Internet -
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm). Some of these ISPs
> are privileging transport of certain packets of data, contrary to the
> neutrality principle. Parallel to this, more and more the discussions
> of security tend to change the end-to-end architecture.
>
> But even focusing on the architecture of the network may seem too
> naïve. Maybe Internet governance issues should also encompass a
> certain general ICT governance, by including computer design for
> example as one important issue to consider. Jonathan Zittrain has
> published a paper of fundamental importance on this line of thought,
> arguing that by insisting in having an end-to-end network will lead to
> power-seeking actors targeting efforts to place limitations in the
> computers in the ends. (see Zittrain on The Generative Internet -
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=847124)
>
> The new paradigm of software as a service and not as a product also
> tends to have regulatory impact by constant live updates changing the
> software code enabling or prohibiting certain uses. The trusted
> computing initiative similarly tends to change the wide range of
> applications of computing power.
>
> A disclaimer: Here, I am not defending neither the rise of the
> intelligent network nor calling for support of the end-to-end
> principle. They all have benefits and negative impacts. I just propose
> that the IGF shall play a role in enhancing a wider awareness of the
> policy implications of these changes (which by now is still
> geek-oriented but more and more incumbent-industry-oriented). A better
> governance is needed in the regulation by code. And leaving the market
> to "self-regulate" may tend to empower those capable to shift the
> architecture of the Internet towards private interests (not
> necessarily in harmony with the international public interest).
>
> I will be very happy to share some ideas with you on this list or, if
> such discussion may shift focus from the original purpose of this
> list, by private email conversations, or even better personally in
> Malta and/or Geneva next month.
>
> Fraternal regards (Carlos, did you "patent" this?)
> Seiiti
>
> On 1/23/06, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
> > Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 12.50 +0300, McTim ha scritto:
> > > I know I've said this before, but...
> > >
> > > Whatever is created MUST be better or equal to the best Internet
> > > Policy Development Processes that we have now.  It was acknowlwdged by
> > > many on the governance caucus list that the RIR policies are the
> > > "cleanest" of the ICANN processes.
> >
> > I agree that RIR processes are quite good, but please don't forget that
> > at the IGF we'll not be making technical agreements with policy
> > implications, but policy agreements that need to be compatible with
> > technology. The set of stakeholders, interests and views that will be
> > involved in discussions on, say, privacy, freedom of expression, or
> > e-commerce are likely to be much much broader and diverse (and less
> > technical) than those involved in names and numbers administration.
> > --
> > vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> > http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance