[governance] Dealing with "Controversial issues" (was : Re: GPLv3 implementation of "user centric identity"?)

Wed Mar 29 09:08:52 EST 2006

Dear all,

The exchange below between Ralf and Norbert Bollow allows to clarify a key
issue regarding Agenda-setting and whether "controversial" issues should be
banned from the Agenda of the IGF (as some governmental interventions in
Geneva requested). .

Ralf is right : the present stage is not about substance but about
determining whether a theme is an "*issue of common concern or interest to
stakeholders*" that needs to be addressed by the Forum.

A issue being qualified as "of common concern or interest" does not mean
stakeholders agree on how to address it, let alone on how to solve it, but
only that there is a general understanding that it is an important issue
that must be addressed.

This is an important distinction that helps address the delicate question of
whether "controversial issues" should be put on the Agenda of the IGF or
not. According to the conception above, stakeholders, including governments,
could only oppose an issue being put on the *formal* Agenda at an annual
IGF if they can demonstrate that :
- either this is not an issue at all, ie : "there is no problem there" or
more simply "there is nothing to discuss about"
- or it does not fit within the mandate of the IGF
- or there are other riper or higher priority issues that must be taken care
of in the event of that year, given the time constraints

In this perspective, issues where actors simply disagree on solutions or
methods *should not be considered "controversial" enough* to be removed from
the Agenda : it is on the contrary the very role and mission of the IGF to
allow a multi-stakeholder deliberation (etymologically : a thorough
consideration of all aspects of a question) on issues of that sort.

In the case of digital identity, we are in such a situation. It is difficult
to argue that there is no problem and it clearly fits within the mandate of
the IGF (be it only because it is a key emerging issue that needs to be
handled carefully, given its ramifications with privacy, security,
confidence-building in e-commerce, cybercrime, and many other aspects of the
Tunis Agenda). The only argument could therefore be that other priorities
should prevail at the first IGF. A counter-argument being that this concept
is so central to the whole trust framework and so cross-cutting that it
should be addressed very early on.

To help this essential topic be accepted, I therefore suggest, rather
than making the theme more detailed immediately as Norbert suggested
(although I share his views on substance) but rather to make it
more comprehensive and in line with formulations already in the Tunis
Agenda. Something like :

*"Strengthening the Trust Framework through User-centric Digital Identity
and Privacy"*
(the expression "strengthen the Trust Framework" is a direct quote of Para
39 of the Tunis Agenda).

 Any modifications to this formulation are of course welcome. Time until the
May consultations could be used to explain more clearly why this is a
central issue and why it is important for all stakeholders' constituencies.

Final note : even if the issue is not accepted as a main theme for the first
IGF, I think it could be an excellent candidate for a parallel session in
Athens or a BoF meeting (cf. my separate reply to Bill's comments on working
groups) and the creation of a discussion group afterwards to feed into the
next annual meeting in Rio.

It is a good occasion to mention that the above set of rules for the formal
Agenda should not apply as such to the formation of Interest groups set up
to document whether a problem is an Issue of common concern or interest.
Such groups should be allowed to form in a more bottom-up informal way.

I hope this helps.

Best

Bertrand

On 3/29/06, Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> >   As we've been discussing our response to the "IGF topics"
> > question in SIUG (Swiss Internet User Group), it was suggested
> > that we might want to support the "user centric identity"
> > proposal
> Good to hear!
>
> > However we do not want to support DRM systems.  Hence we'd
> > want to support "user centric identity" only if it's being
> > implemented in a way which ensures that it will not primarily
> > have the effect of providing a more solid foundation for
> > DRM systems.
> Maybe you are not exactly clear about the status of these proposals. This
> is not the time nor place to decide things like concrete implementations
> and their licenses. We are at the point of making suggestions on what
> should be on the agenda of the IGF, meaning that there is a need to
> discuss it and develop policy directions.
>
> *If* and only if digital identity makes it on the agenda, we can certainly
> use all arguments and lobbying facilities we have to make sure identity
> systems are regulated and implemented without supporting DRM and in an
> open way.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060329/8f22c31b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance