[governance] IGF Preparatory seminar held in Sao Paulo

[Seiiti Arata]

Hi all - just want to share some notes of an interesting event held in São
Paulo recently as a preparation for the IGF. Hope it can be useful for you.
If you are interested in more info, please get in touch with me or with
Carlos.

We will soon launch a second edition of this event in Rio de Janeiro
(probab. Sept).

Regards,
Seiiti
**
*****
*Observation - These are private notes taken by Seiiti Arata in the event
organized by NUPEF/RITS with Direito GV, CTS/FGV and DiploFoundation, with
support from CGI.br and Ford Foundation. RITS was the executive leader in
the process. Note that the following are private interpretations and do not
constitute the opinion of the speakers. An official transcript of the event
will soon be made available at Nupef website and more information can be
obtained from **seiitia at diplomacy.edu* <seiitia at diplomacy.edu>* Further, a
discussion list is to be made connecting the participants of the event and
other interested people to make this an ongoing debate leading to the second
preparatory seminar and beyond. *


*Opening*

The preparatory seminar to the IGF at Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo
held in July 3 and 4 discussed 'possible governance models', 'open
standards', 'access to knowledge' and 'gender'. The second seminar will be
held in Rio at Getulio Vargas Foundation on September 12 and 13.

RITS and NUPEF are not only playing their role as actors in the context of a
democratic process but also stimulating others to join.

*DAY 1 – July 3*

*Possible governance models*

The initial involvement of the Brazilian delegation in the Internet
governance debate can be identified in the ANATEL – Brazilian National
Telecommunications Agency internal meeting for Bavaro PrepCom. The
discussion of backbone cost and ICANN governance model got attention.

At Bavaro, US joins to counter Cuba proposals. This is when Brazil adds the
proposal to consider the Internet as a multilateral, democratic and
transparent resource. As the US had joined the process because of the need
to counterargument Cuban draft proposals, the Brazilian proposal does not
get objection from the US side and is subscribed.

From this point on, the Brazilian Foreign Relations officers are always
promoting synergy with ANATEL officers in negotiation strategies.

The discussion develops to the creation of the WGIG. A need for a
centralized forum is felt, but at Tunis, the argument that we shall not fix
what is not broken is still strong. IGF is created as a discussion forum
with possibility of making recommendations, but that did not happen in
Athens.

Being the second host, Brazil wants to be better able to influence and
promote further developments according to the mandate. One of the ideas is
to bring ICANN issues in the core, such as the governance model for critical
resources (ICANN) and infrastructure (ITU). These are the most critical
governance discussions as there are no current existing discussion fora for
that, compared to other issues in which existing bodies are taking charge of
things. Spam is one such example needing more international cooperation.

As a second product of the IGF, the enhanced cooperation, this was not
implemented so far. Today we have the IGF with great potential for promoting
ICANN and ITU change.

-- 

We shall not take the internet for granted, just as we cannot take water for
granted, the environmentalists would say. What is the governance behind?
Different interests clash, different possible futures. The governance will
have lots of political and cultural effects as well.

Governance of what? Who makes it?

Multistakeholder comprising different countries and also different actors.
Tunis seemed too vague. But even then we advanced and the Brazilian
delegation was very important. But how to conciliate so many different
actors together? Countries in theory represent their people. But what about
big corporations? What kind of representatives do we have? As this process
is new and somehow connected to the UN crisis, we have to be aware of how to
do it properly otherwise the IGF may become just a rhetoric process, a show
for all to see but without effectiveness.

Of what? Internet some years ago was considered another media. But TCP/IP
transmission is swallowing other technologies and media. Let us think in
layers.

Different governance models for different layers such as infrastructure,
which implies interconnection issues. Network neutrality is about keeping
the road neutral. Logical layer governance makes us think whether a
corporate entity in California can control finite resources. The problem is
not its location, but being subject to US law. Now that China is entering
the Internet market, there will be a huge demand for resources.

Architecture (hardware and software) layer also to be internationally
discussed.

Content – do we want regulation? Of what kind? Undesired content such as
spam, criminal content such as pedophilia and even intermediary and subtle
issues such as age rating for television.

Who makes governance? Of what? We are not anymore only discussing Internet
strictu sensu – we have now a larger picture. Today is the deadline for
organizations run into CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee)
elections. Brazil made a governance space that deals with some of these
questions touching even digital divide, net neutrality, content regulation,
etc. Also CGI has elected representatives – 3 from academy, 4 of the private
sector and 3 from civil society.

-- 

Why logical infrastructure is the most discussed issue? Domain names will
soon loose importance with the evolution of search mechanisms. Unfortunately
this is still a popular item for discussion.

Interconnection agreements are unfair because developed countries have
favorable agreements. It's too expensive to have broadband in developing
countries as who decides the price has freedom to change how much they want.
Australia and EU were able to negotiate prices. There is no international
control of these costs.

In the analogic era, these discussions were held in ITU. But today there's
nothing, no body we can rely upon. Another issue is censorship. Here in
Brazil senator Azeredo has proposed a bill to identify users. In the name of
security, censorship is being proposed. There is no international convention
to avoid these scenarios.

Another important issue is convergence and net neutrality. In thesis you can
connect your computer and render services. Servers are now located in
certain places. It is still possible to render any service but with
convergence there is a tendency to have a controlled layered network
deciding which sites you can access and how to interact.

A recent ICANN discussion on generic TLDs is that the registrar shall only
use technical arguments. There is no international guideline to discuss what
should be adequate or not, such as .fun or .xxx

-- 

We want less of a show for Rio IGF and more knowledge from the panelists,
increasing the depth of discussion. A wrap up is needed to avoid losing
words in rhetoric. And the moderator shall also be able to make a link and
point out which workshops will deal with such and such theme.

Also, each country will be able to present its governance model in a
specific forum. Another forum will be available for entities such as WIPO,
ICANN, ITU… to present their work. Dynamic coalitions are another example of
groups of people together decising.

-- 

MAG was to be like WGIG however it is not so multilateral. MAG is too
influenced by ICANN related members and thus ICANN issues were not discussed
as we wanted.


*Open standards*

IDEC, the Institute of Consumer Protection, is just starting work in IPR
although had previous contact with transgenics and patents.

-- 

Open standards are very important. The network society is based in
standards, protocols and architecture. Communication intermediaries are
essential elements of the day to day life. Direct communication is being
substituted by mediated, regulated and controlled intermediaries.

Code is law. Standards define different levels of liberty and rights
including research rights, anonymity, private and public interests.
Therefore, standards have great importance and shall not be controlled by
one single corporation.

There are many layers of protocols such as application, transport, network
and physical. And the Internet can be understood as a big agreement. There
are agreements that one layer shall not interfere on the others to preserve
free flow.

From the economic point of view, standards are vital for the market. J.
Stiglitz – mix of monopoly, competition and IP influences innovation pacing.
Controls previous innovations, which is the base for next innovations, acts
as barriers to disruptors. By innovating, increases the incumbent power and
innovates just to keep position of power – this cannot be considered as an
optimal innovation. Monopoly reduced innovation in the long term. De facto
standards defined by the market are different from consensus standards,
which shall not be the one from monopoly and not protect one company.

IPv6. If we define that to communicate on the net we have to digitally sign
each packet, this will be the end of anonymity. The network shall not work
under the vigilance empire.

Open Document Format allows any software to open documents. Assures whole
interoperability. Why would companies approve ODF? Because it is ISO
approved. Microsoft is the one reacting with OOXML standard. They are adding
lots of routines under its property. OOXML implies lots of patents. It is
open, but its contents are not.

-- 

There are multicultural aspects linked to governance.

The Azeredo bill, if not implemented on a global level, will not solve
problems and will only be an obstacle to civil liberty rights. However, it
is supported by the banking associations due to online fraud.


*Intellectual property and access to knowledge*

Challenges and opportunities for access to knowledge.

Number 1 driver of change in IG space is the protection for IP rights. We
have seen lots of rights being granted to holders and limiting users. How do
we see these drivers being manifested? DRMs, Technology restrictions, policy
issues for IPR which is not necessarily law, just policy with implications
in rights.

Technology restriction – digital locks for music, videos, digital books, for
example.

Proprietary standards and tech patents being embedded on the internet –
patents in protocols are one example.

To combat that, we have to promote open standards and protocols, non
proprietary software and creative commons type of works.

WIPO 1996 Internet treaties. Proposed treaty on Broadcasting was a threat to
A2K.

Brazil played an important role fighting it and the proposal was defeated 2
weeks ago.

Development agenda – weigh costs and benefits. Are we increasing innovation?
Become more public interest approach based.

Free trade agreements – the target is P2P file sharing.

ICANN is another policy forum. Problem with the UDRP is that the filing
party picks the arbitror. 84% of decisions are favorable to the plaintiff.
Policy for new gTLDs is a problem of expansion of trademarks' holders on the
Internet.

Keep the core neutral initiative.

ICANN policy – no offensive words and ideas. No works against public policy
or morality. Religious sensitivities. Problem: massive censorship and little
protection of freedom of expression.

ICANN whois: privacy threat to EU Data Protection laws and local laws such
as the one from Argentina.

-- 

History of intellectual property and the problem with its expansion and
strengthening to protect not the authors and innovation, but the industry
exploring it.


*Gender*

Gender issues are being discussed since the 90s conferences. Gender balance
is necessary for social and economic development.

Gender is not a synonym of women.

In the WGIG lots of efforts to amplify female participation: only 6 members
out of 40.

Context in which technical aspect receive more attention than social themes.


An effort must be made to demonstrate how IG debate shall bring more actors
together.

Part of WGIG members from the government were from countries in which women
are treated as second class citizens.

Hot issues linked to sex and freedom – freedom of expression, A2K, content,
privacy and security.

*DAY 2 – July 4*

There are lots of people already dealing with horizontal issues. What is the
goal? Preaching for the preachers or bringing new people around? A2K for
instance – how was this proposed in the IGF? Is there coordination with
WIPO/WTO?

Seems we have 3 groups – those already connected to the IGF process. This is
the core circle we already reached. The second group is related to people
dealing with communications. The third circle is the civil society groups
not already involved.

It is also important to talk to media representatives. We will do this
before Rio. Those meetings with media are very important. We already did
this in the past and had great success.

IGF is not a traditional event. For the Brazilian Foreign Relations, it is
important to have good multistakeholder model. The IGF is still under
construction The 4 big thematic groups from Athens are being considered –
openness / access / security / diversity. A new one is technical resources.


Inside these 5 big themes, what will we discuss? There are consultations for
workshops, which differ from Athens – they will be linked to the themes. In
this preliminary list of themes we have interesting ones. One Swiss entity
will discuss a development agenda in IG similarly to what Argentina and
Brazil did at WIPO.

Dynamic coalitions – a space in Rio will be available for meetings and
reporting to the central meeting. Who are the specialists we want in the
tables?

These are different days since Tunis. Civil society and private sector do
not rely upon governments anymore to have their voices presented into
international for a. Anyway, the Brazilian government, through the
Itamaraty, is open to receive input from different stakeholders and compose
a good position.

There are ideas to use November 10 and 11 to a civil society meeting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070808/74a26d7f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070808/74a26d7f/attachment.txt>