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

[Seiiti Arata]

Hi - sorry for this late-post

Thanks Bill for the support in discussing these issues related to the
future of the net. Indeed, I guess that the scope of Internet
governance must become wider: encompass not only the NGNs but also ICT
generally - I really think that Zittrain`s argument that if changes to
the network are difficult to make, the targets for changing the
architecture will be the computing devices at the ends.

David wrote:
> May I suggest?  Continuing to enable free-form innovation, which is
> on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line
> imperatives ultimately before the IGF.  In my sense anyway, this will
> run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns may
> engender (as Bill begins to unveil below).

David, thanks for sharing your view. I agree with you on giving
preference to free-form innovation. This is exactly the reason of my
concern.

However, a low level of governance in developing ICT architecture may
allow the capture of final outcomes by the most powerful and influent
actors. These will easily have their models set as the prevailing ones
in the market even though in opposition to the public interest in case
there is no adequate level of governance.

IMO, we shall not force innovation to use a specific standards
organization or procedure. What is needed instead is more awareness of
the impacts of the technologies under construction. And soft
mechanisms, like Recommendations from the IGF, would bring a positive
effect and higher level of governance.

Two very extreme examples that show how industry (to take one
stakeholder for instance) tends from time from time to use
technologies to their interests (which is not necessarily harmonious
to the public interest):

1) In early 1999, Intel was accused of adding serial numbers into
their computer chips. Check
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-513735.html  - It was necessary to
have civil liberties groups making pressure against the company to
block this tendency. If consumers were not organized or strong enough,
maybe we would be browsing with ID numbers today.

2) December 2005, another "conspiracy theory" discovered: printers
being used to hide tracking dots. See:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/  Once again, a tricky
architectural feature with controversial effects was found. And the
civil liberties groups will have to use their power to put pressure
against companies to refrain from embedding such features into their
products.

Of course, not every problem related to ICT architecture sounds like
an X-files episode like these two examples. DRMs for instance are
quite visible to the user: the limitations to the use of the computing
power are immediately felt when you can not play a certain file into a
certain device or print more than x copies of a doc. When DRMs meet
the trusted computing platform, limitations will be even clearer. Will
consumers have enough power to make a group made of AMD, HP, IBM,
Microsoft etc (https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home) change
their computing architectures? Will the market self-regulate and new
companies offering non-trusted computing rise as disruptors in a
market in which trusted computing becomes mainstream? I sincerely do
not know the answer.

IMO currently the discussion on the governance aspects of development
of new technologies (including its following transformation into
standards when successful) is important. It is necessary to discuss
among stakeholders what certain technologies will bring to the
Information Society, to produce greater awareness. Only then the "free
market" will be "free". A free decision is only taken when we know
what options are available and what the consequences will be.
Otherwise, consumers will be supporting "de facto" standards without
knowing what they are really about.

The IGF has a potential to add valuable contribution in this respect.
According to item 72. g. of the Tunis Agenda, the mandate of the IGF
is to "Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the
relevant bodies and the general public,
and, where appropriate, make recommendations;". Further, generally its
mandate is related to facilitation of dialogue and enhance
decision-making transparency and everything else governance is about.

One particular issue I believe can be further discussed in the IGF:
end-to-end. Many stakeholders and even the WGIG have made statements
during WSIS supporting the maintenance of the "end-to-end" principle.
Some were against it -(http://www.wgig.org/docs/CNRInovember.pdf)

What should that be really taken into consideration? Does e2e really
provide an innovative commons? What if the "rise of the middle" (check
RFC 3724 - http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2004-March/000476.html
) can add greater security and stability? The answer does not matter.
What matters, in a good governance perspective, is that the decisions
related to the future design of the Internet and surrounding ICTs are
made with the full participation of all stakeholders. And for that,
more awareness is necessary. Working groups under the IGF umbrella
would be welcome, and the IGF itself could be an open repository of
papers, opinions etc. perhaps using a wiki or other collaborative
tool.

Seiiti

On 1/24/06, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Additional perspective:
>
> The telco world has been evolving, to incorporate the rise of the
> net.  Bill makes clear how NGN is one model for the emerging, robust
> 'new telco.'
>
> The Internet side has not been sitting still.  There are a number of
> initiatives underway.  One, fairly recent is GENI
> http://www.nsf.gov/cise/geni/ .  A just released 'snapshot' shows a
> third of a billion (US) dollar effort, for first work anyway
> http://www.geni.net/GENI-10-JAN-06.pdf .  A quick browse through some
> of the graphics in the 122 pages gives a sense of the scope.
>
> There are others.  Besides the fairly well known Internet2
> http://www.internet2.edu/ , Bill St. Arnaud's CANARIE recently linked
> to some others
> http://lists.canarie.ca/pipermail/news/2005/000177.html .  Engineers
> on this IG list (perhaps Ian?) can do a better job pointing us to the
> full picture, for instance to efforts outside the US.
>
> These are the same forces (and some of the same people) who unleashed
> the innovation that became the Internet, from a few decades ago.
>
> One of the more interesting questions is what might be the relation
> between telco NGN and these new visions/versions of a net.  The
> recent history left Bell heads on one side and Net heads on the
> other.  Recent practice at ITU-T, the standardization arm, has
> reached out to arrange for more coordination among international
> standards work, including especially with the IETF, on the net side
> of course.
>
> May I suggest?  Continuing to enable free-form innovation, which is
> on display in these initiatives, is one of the bottom-line
> imperatives ultimately before the IGF.  In my sense anyway, this will
> run in parallel with regulatory efforts that some other concerns may
> engender (as Bill begins to unveil below).
>
> This free-form innovation is IMO just one outcropping of freedom of
> expression, the touchstone for much of what powered WSIS debate, from
> both sides.  And will continue to be driving in IGF, again IMO.  (If
> we look for it in the 'principles,' 'transparent' comes closest.)
>
> David
>
> William Drake wrote, Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:46:56 +0100:
> >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
> _______________________________________________
> 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