[governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC at IGF)

[William Drake]

Hi George,

> From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net>

> Bill,
> 
> I refer to my sense that much of the WSIS-2 process was a fight over
> the role of ICANN, and my feeling that many of the governments were
> concentrating only on that with respect to the utility of the
> Internet for whatever development (some social, some economic, some
> both) they would like to see the Internet bring to their country.  To
> EXAGGERATE to make the point, why should a government look at
> internal reform when it can blame ICANN or other external forces of
> evil for deficiencies in how the Internet is run.  I capitalize here
> to avoid being misquoted.

Ok, I thought this was probably your underlying concern, but then you framed
it more broadly as a corrective to a collective presumption that
everything's intrinsically global and IG, which I'd not seen at work here,
so I thought I'd seek clarification.
 
> In the long run, international dialogue helps to form a set of
> accepted standards, whether for concrete things like the shape of
> electrical plugs  or for more abstract goals such as standards of
> individual respect and decency, e.g. the Geneva Convention, the right
> of law, etc.  In the shorter run, I believe that local action is more
> effective and should not be dismissed, explicitly or implicitly.

I'd agree that for some issues, local action is more effective.  But for
others, international action is, or can be.  And in either case,
international dialogue can be useful, particularly if viewed as an
opportunity rather than a threat.

> With respect to the Internet industry, you're right, there are no
> internationally applied rules.  But, working back from civil society
> goals, if you're concerned about how the Internet furthers those
> goals, I think that you are led to the position that the more people
> who are on it, the better, and that leads to the issue of how to make
> it as accessible and affordable as possible for the greatest number
> of people.

Sure
 
> Other things weigh in her, such as privacy, consumer protection,
> liability issues here, but the important thing is affordable
> confidential access to information and communication.   When we have
> achieved that in a country, it will act as an engine of progress in
> multiple dimensions.

Can one get to 'confidential' through purely national action, particularly
when there's so much external pressure for surveillance coming from powerful
governments and firms?
 
> How that is achieved will be different in different countries.  so if
> the IGF, and like-minded meetings put the spotlight on the role and
> importance of national practices as well as international issues,
> that's fine.  Let's just not confuse the two.

Why don't you offer a taxonomy of which is which to help things along?
 
> I really hadn't intended to start such a protracted discussion ....

Then you posted to the wrong list;-)

Cheers,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance