[governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical discussions"
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Tue Jan 24 05:20:12 EST 2006
Agree with Bill. Here is my brief analysis (from a recent newsletter) of
some other issues that need to be looked at in IGF context.
To the section on Googleisation I would add the recent USG attempt to
subpoena Google search results (in order to analyse effectiveness of content
filtering software). The precedent here has enormous ramifications.
EMERGING ISSUES
But in many ways, the debates at WSIS missed the big issues that we expect
will dominate our thinking in 2006.
VOIP VS TRADITIONAL TELCO MODELS
For instance, the battle between VOIP (voice over IP) and traditional
telephony systems, which will begin to dominate discussions in national
regulatory regimes of countries with high broadband penetration, hardly got
a mention. Yet there is hardly an issue where the importance of
understanding the potential of the Internet is more important. Traditional
telco business models are very threatened by Internet growth, and telco
lobbying power will undoubtedly lead to some draconian attempts to stop
Internet growth by regulatory restrictions based on content type.
Model legislation therefore becomes important in allowing the emergence of a
regime in which voice connections are no different to any other Internet
connections.
We envisage a future regime where bandwidth is about as basic as water or
electricity supply, distance does not matter, time doesn't matter, volume
doesn't really matter - more a flat annual cost Internet. That's the one
that can help this planet and global communications most.
We want to see the Internet as a place you visit, not some highly regulated
network facility broken up into different regulatory regimes according to
the types of traffic being transmitted.
GOOGLEISATION
2005 was also the year in which the power of Google became apparent. Moving
from a simple base as a very good Internet search engine, Google, using
excessive market capitalisation that had some people talking of a second
'dotcom" era, proceeded to
" Make available Google Maps, raising ire among some countries at the
easy availability of satellite imagery of military facilities
" Became evidence in a criminal court case in USA, where Google
searches on the words "neck" and "snap" became part of criminal evidence,
raising substantial privacy issues
" Released Google desktop, with cookies allowing customization of news
alerts and further raising privacy concerns
" Released Google Print, a plan to make available on line literary
works, raising copyright concerns
" Began rolling out city wide free wireless networks in towns such as
Mountain View, California, posing enormous challenges for those who would
regulate telephony and broadcast facilities and support the economic
viability of legacy broadcast and telephony models.
And much more. This was the year that Google posed new challenges for
regulators. We have yet to see responses, particularly at an international
level.
OTHER ISSUES WE BELIEVE IGF SHOULD LOOK AT
These are issues we would like to see discussed in an Internet Governance
Forum - and they have precious little to do with ICANN, which is a good
thing. We would also add to the agenda
Widespread spectrum availability to support global communications (even at
the expense of legacy systems such as free to air TV)
Digital rights management
US Broadcast Flag Legislation
Network Neutrality
Where is the model legislation here? Where are the best practice approaches?
We call on the Internet community to take this opportunity to engage with
governments and help forge satisfactory regulatory regimes for the growth of
the Internet.
Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2006 8:47 PM
> To: Seiiti Arata; Vittorio Bertola
> Cc: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Losing focus: IGF and "technical
> discussions"
>
> 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
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release
> Date: 20/01/2006
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 20/01/2006
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list