[governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people

[Parminder]

Jeremy

Our differences come from a basically different way we look at the Internet
- its reality, and impact on the world around us today. A recent EU document
called ICTs as 'constitutive' of the present day reality (more so, emerging)
but you still seem to see it as a relatively neutral platform of
communication among a set of users who are adequate to be represented on IG
structures. 

> > player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current
> > Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is
> > all the people of the world).
> 
> The last option is too broad to be meaningful.  


WTO and WIPO, as much as convention on climate change etc etc,
notwithstanding over-representation of some sectional interests, are still
able to proceed on the basic plank that their specific governance system
impact all people of the world, and all of them are (equally) its
constituency...  Why cant IG do it as well. Why is the 'last option' too
broad to be meaningful for IG... WTO could also say, it is about traders and
companies in different countries, and NOT all people. Anybody in the WTO
arena would consider it a naïve view. To give some extreme illustrations I
can point to literature which analyzes how WTO activities impact gender
distribution of domestic roles in villages of, say, Bangladesh. And how,
consequently, poor women groups have been articulating opinions in and about
WTO. Nobody asks them what are they doing there since they are not direct
'users' of the trade system. 

>My understanding of the
> Internet community is simply the community of Internet users.

Good we got into this discussion, because too often you and I agree on many
things on the IGC list :) but this shows how we disagree at more basic
levels. To illustrate by personal example, I myself have great interest in
IG as you can see. I almost entirely speak for the interests for the present
non-users (and some indirect users). So, if non-users aren’t an equally
legitimate constituency in IG, by your reckoning I just shouldn’t be here.
At the very least, this proves we have strong difference about what we all
are doing in IG fora. 

> But it does not count for the inclusion of non-users in all IG fora,
> because there are many issue areas that will be simply irrelevant to
> them.  I can't imagine why non-users would generally need to be
> consulted by the IETF, for example.  

The biggest confusion (and energy sapper) on this list is this going back
and forth between technical admin functions, and public policy issues around
IG. And our charter puts it very clearly that we are here basically about
the public policy issues. And in case of public policy issues around IG I
think it is easier to see equal legitimacy of users and (present) non-users
(who are also indirect 'users')

> By the same token, Internet users
> have no need to be represented in development fora.

The ease with which you construct two different worlds (even if
hypothetically)- one of 'internet users' and other of 'development' is in
fact quite disturbing. 

> I'm not sure that I could support that as a blanket statement.  The
> stakeholders impacted by an IG issue, and therefore entitled to be heard
> in respect of it, will vary from one case to another.  However in many,
> perhaps most issue areas, existing Internet users will be the most
> directly affected and thus have the strongest claim to be heard.

You are sticking to the users based governance systems which I argued is
appropriate in some contexts but not in that of internet related public
polices, and have not engaged with the limitation of such a system vis a vis
public interest/ citizenship/ social contract based systems, which, I
argued, are more appropriate to Internet related issues that are so
fundamentally transforming our world. 

It is not difficult to see how difference between user and non-user
interests work out. To give a simplistic example, most users on Internet
today use roman characters. Most non-users don’t use roman characters. ICANN
is often accused of going slow on multilingual DNs. The WSIS system where
non-users had relatively better representation brought this (among others)
issue in greater focus. Consequently ICANN is moving faster on multi-lingual
DNs. (I am only using this issue as an example, and not starting a
discussion on the facts of the issue here.) So, you tell me whether the
issue whether multilingual DNs are admitted or not affect present non-users.
This is only one small illustration, everything that we do about internet
governance - the very nature and principles of such governance, issues of
content, of public domain versus propriety interests, of security issues...
just everything affects all people of the world. And it is important see all
of them as equal constituents of any legitimate Internet governance/ policy
system. 

It is partly because of this 'Internet user' terminology that ICANN is able
to self-justify itself on accountability etc because it itself tries to
develop representation structures based on the 'user' logic, and is able to
justify shying away from the IGC where all kinds of people come up to
question ICANN. (not saying that it is an adequate justification, but that
this kind of thinking of a user based governance system works in ICANN's
mind when it justifies staying away from more broadly representative IGF
kind of arenas.)

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Interent community, internet users, and the
> people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC)
> 
> Parminder wrote:
> > I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - what
> > is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people
> > directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC’s – a major
> > player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current
> > Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is
> > all the people of the world).
> 
> The last option is too broad to be meaningful.  My understanding of the
> Internet community is simply the community of Internet users.
> 
> In saying this I don't disagree that the interests of non-users need to
> be taken into account in certain IG issue areas that impact them,
> particularly development.  This favours the inclusion of all
> stakeholders including civil society and governments rather than just
> Internet users, in fora relevant to those issues, such as the IGF.
> 
> But it does not count for the inclusion of non-users in all IG fora,
> because there are many issue areas that will be simply irrelevant to
> them.  I can't imagine why non-users would generally need to be
> consulted by the IETF, for example.  By the same token, Internet users
> have no need to be represented in development fora.
> 
> > *Can we, in the IGC, expressly recognize ‘all people of the world, in
> > their various individual and social expressions, in equal
> > representation’ as the legitimate constituency of IG? *And also make an
> > express statement that IGC sees itself as seeking to represent the
> > interests of this constituency (and not the internet community or the
> > individual internet user, due to the above said definitional issues).
> 
> I'm not sure that I could support that as a blanket statement.  The
> stakeholders impacted by an IG issue, and therefore entitled to be heard
> in respect of it, will vary from one case to another.  However in many,
> perhaps most issue areas, existing Internet users will be the most
> directly affected and thus have the strongest claim to be heard.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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