[governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue) and (Dis)Continuity

Tue Apr 24 04:57:26 EDT 2007

Thank you, Milton and Bill, for making explicit some of the tacit parts of
my message. Of course history did not start yesterday, nor will it end
tomorrow (hopefully). Believe me, I can prove this, coming from a region
which generates more history than it can consume (sometimes it "exports"
history, as it did back in 1914). 

All issues have history. Some "IG themes" can be traced back to earlier than
1981. Recently, I have been consulting the League of Nations archive. You
have it all there.... question of obscene publications, censorship, new
media and content (at that time radio), media and political life, etc. Also,
if we go back to the early days of ITU and, since then, the ongoing debate
of private vs. public (Bill knows a lot about it) .... or Marconi and
standardization/monopoly or ...... 

There is an almost continuous historical recycling of debates and disputes.
One of the most skilful diplomats following the WSIS/WGIG in Geneva told me
that he was recycling arguments from the IG-debate in the 1990s (essentially
replacing "civil society" with the name of his country). BTW - is anyone
aware of any research on recycling of international policy debates?

History helps to put things into context, but it can also block us, forcing
us to dig into our trenches and follow the logic of "I know how they will
react". This is especially the case when we have "lived" the history. Again,
I can confirm this from my personal experience. During the 1990s, I was
involved in opposing a bad guy from the Balkans. It made an impact on my
life. Every fight leaves scars. One of my "scars" is a lack of objectivity
to appreciate changes in circumstances and contexts in the Balkans. I tend
to fit new developments into already established molds (more emotional than
objective). 

There is no formula to identify historical continuity and discontinuity. The
only thing we can do is to be aware of it. My message on the IG Debate aimed
at identifying a few changes in the overall context that may influence
continuity/discontinuity in the IG debate (not the end of the debate). There
are many elements to argue for the "discontinuity" phase. Back to
history...... here is one of my favorite quotes from Ibn Khaldun (sometimes
unfairly called the "Arab Machiavelli"):

"Scholars are of all people those least fitted for politics and its ways.
The reason for this is that they are accustomed to intellectual speculation,
the search for concepts, and the abstraction from sense data and
clarification in the mind. All their operations aim at attaining the
universal aspect of things not those particular to their material content,
or to a person, generation, nation, or particular class of men.. In fact, no
social phenomenon should be judged by analogy with other phenomena, for if
it is similar to them in certain respects it may yet differ from them in
many others... The ordinary sound man of mediocre intelligence, whose mind
is unaccustomed to such speculation, judges each case on its own merits."

If we step back and reflect on people, discussions and processes in the IG
debate we can see how relevant Ibn Khaldun is today (almost 1000 years
later). Yes, I consider myself a "scholar" (though not officially accepted
in the club). 

Best, Jovan

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:16
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue)

Hi,

On 4/22/07 10:44 PM, "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> years). I've seen many an ICT policy issue come and go, and believe me
> the global governance arrangements around Internet and other ICTs are
> extremely meaty and no flash in the pan. Maybe to you it was no more
> than a passing wave to be caught, but not me.

>>>> jovank at diplomacy.edu 04/22/07 12:37 PM >>>

> You are right that IG is no longer on the radars of governments
> worldwide
> (if it ever was). There are many reasons for this. First--and the most
> important--is that the world has changed substantially between 2003,
> when IG
> was put on the WSIS agenda, and  2007.
> 
> Back in 2003, the IG-debate was, to a large extent, "collateral damage"
> of
> the Iraq war. Today, the situation has substantially changed. In the US,

When I first read Jovan's message, I like Milton thought, how the hell could
he say this?  International policy debates and action on IG significantly
predated WSIS, didn't stop when WSIS ended, and will continue far into the
future.  And the issues that divide governments and other stakeholders
internationally, not just on names and numbers but the whole host of IG
topics---IPR, security, civil liberties, e-commerce, etc--can't be reduced
to anti-Bush/American/war sentiment.  But perhaps there's a simple way to
square the two views.  What WSIS did was temporarily push IG up the agendas
of general foreign policy, so we got Condi Rice writing letters and so on,
and foreign ministries and people from the UN missions here in Geneva who'd
never worked on IG per se suddenly were spending time and energy on it.  Now
that the 'threat' of a 'UN takeover of core resources' and other
WSIS-related buzz has subsided and the focus has shifted back to the
internal processes of the various specialized IG mechanisms, the issues have
moved back down the bureaucratic chain within governments to the
agencies/ministries that are normally tasked with global ICT policy.  They
continue to negotiate with their counterparts in the relevant forums, but
without the nominal prospect of something big happening, there's less buzz
and the UN mission people are back in business as usual mode.  So I could
agree with Jovan if we reformulated "IG is no longer on the radars of
governments worldwide" as "IG has for the time being moved from being 'high
politics' attracting generalists in foreign ministries and agitating the
press and others back to being 'low politics.' involving specialists in
ministries of communication, the US Dept. of Commerce, etc."  Still on the
radar, but different.

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

____________________________________________________________
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