[governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and how?

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Dan,

thanks for your note and appreciation for the amount of thought you are 
putting into this thread. I'll try to cut short to a few issues:

> I agree that we (whoever "we" are) are still in a very early learning stage
> about Internet governance in general, and I actually think that building a
> new "world government" is a particularly bad idea.  I don't know if that is
> exactly what you mean by "delusion" but I hope so.

This it is indeed. Plenty literature against "one global government" and I 
won't delve deep since you agree.

>
> Nevertheless, the Internet by design has a "global footprint" and thus any
> "governance" structure set up for it as a whole necessarily *must* be
> understood as a "global governance" structure in practice.  This is
> *precisely* the danger we face in the IG endeavor.
>

"Problem-domain-specific" is not at odds with "global." Proven by IETF and 
ICANN.

> There is simply no way to avoid the fact that Internet Governance is either
> going to spill over into general political World Governance, or else it
> must formally constrain itself to policy areas of a strictly technical
> nature without allowing technical policies to pre-empt general
> non-technical political dynamics and thus political jurisdictions.
>

Red herring.

> This proceeds from the understanding that there is overlap between some
> technical issues and some general political issues.  There are: (a) purely
> technical issues, (b) purely non-technical general political issues, and
> (c) issues that are both technical and generally political.
>
> So the choice I see is this:
>
> (A) Confine any and all institutions of Internet Governance to purely
> technical matters, leaving all matters of non-technical policy (including
> non-technical general political ramifications of technical policies) to
> other jurisdictions of governance.  For example: Don't try to resolve
> trademark disputes or disputes about "morality" of *semantic
> characteristics of any kind* within the institutions of IG, because those
> are matters of general political import.  This should be formally defined
> in the bylaws of any IG institution, and strictly enforced one way or
> another, to be determined.
>
> Or:
>
> (B) Recognize that policies that may have originated out of technical
> considerations may have ineliminable general political ramifications, and
> thus any institutions that are set up to address technical policy in the
> "expansive" sense will necessarily tread on the ground of "world
> governance" and we had better keep that in mind if we wish to avoid
> profound unanticipated consequences.
>
> I don't know what the specific resolution is here, and I am trying to learn
> more about the options as they are discussed on this list.  All I'm trying
> to do here is present a reality that ought to be taken into account one way
> or another if the result is to be effective.
>
>
> So, I don't yet have an opinion on how this translates into specific
> relationships of ALAC and NCUC within ICANN, for example (ICANN's domain of
> jurisdiction has something to do with this, of course).  But I do think
> that it is probably the case that ultimately the stakeholders for an
> increasing number of issues that are being addressed in IG venues must
> include the broadest definition of the general public, one way or another,
> and with some effective manner of representation.
>
> For example:
> * Net neutrality is a matter of general public interest.

As shown in this list, ill-defined, too many meanings by now. Many 
strictly under national law. But yes, in some of the definitions, general 
public interest.

> * Affordable access to the Internet is a matter of general public interest.

As extensively studied (cfr. WGIG, e.g.), yes, but mostly under national 
umbrella. Only interconnection costs touch this cross-border.

> * Control over the facilities and processes of information propagation in
> general is a matter of general public interest.

Again, mostly under national umbrellas. The route of a new global bill of 
rights is the only global approach with some resonance here. I am very 
skeptical that it will go far or do much good though.

> * The overall structure of Internet architecture ultimately is a matter of
> general public interest, to the extent that it affects the issues listed
> above.

No effect on my argument.

>
> This is not to say that the general public "is interested in" (as in "is
> aware of") these issues, but simply that the outcome of these issues
> affects the general public in ways that affect their political status
> generally, whether they are aware of it or not, and thus they should be
> effectively represented somehow in whatever processes determine such
> policies.
>
> I'd be curious to hear your direct response to the point I made below,
> which I will recopy here for your convenience:
>
> ">> ... Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as
>>> whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and
>>> whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be
>>> able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose
>>> among competing service providers in the market)."
>

No contest, but how do you bring these people into the decision-making 
structure? Many of us have jumped through hoops to try to attract people 
to domain-name issues, for example, and after a decade we know for sure 
that dear few will come.

Karl will argue that by campaigning for elections this can be done. I 
dispute the assertion if it is to relate to learning about the policy 
matters at hand and providing meaningful input.

Re choice for domain-name registration, man, with gTLDs and some ccTLDs 
the situation is that of l'embaras du choix, not scarcity of options!




> Are you saying that no members of the general non-Internet-using (or
> non-domain-registering) public have a stake in (gTLD policy or) any policy
> that affects Internet access?  I would think that it is fairly obvious that
> they do.  So then the question is, in what way can they be *represented*
> effectively in the policy-making process (since there are too many of them
> to participate directly, and the transaction costs of participation prevent
> most of them from doing so anyway, even if they wanted to)?
>
> Bottom line:  Defining who is a deserving stakeholder for any particular
> policy topic may indeed depend on the *outcome* of the policy-making
> process itself, *unless* all IG institutions formally and strictly confine
> themselves to avoiding any policies with any significant non-technical and
> generally political ramifications.  But is this confinement really even
> feasible and/or desirable in the first place?
>
> This I fairly doubt.  So, what do you suggest doing about it?
>
> This is not so much a "controversy" at root (though there certainly is
> controversy surrounding it), but rather it is a very difficult *conundrum*
> that deserves to be addressed fully on its own profound terms.
>
> I don't have the answer for it, at this point, but I suggest that
> ultimately we cannot avoid finding a workable answer for it if we hope to
> do justice.
>
> If, as you suggest, we cannot feasibly tackle this comprehensively head-on
> at this stage, then we ought to keep in mind that separate topic-oriented
> approaches need to be explicitly, formally, and strictly confined in such a
> way that they do not spill over into general political ramifications.  This
> would confine ICANN, for example, much more strictly than it has behaved in
> the past.

I hope this does not mean that you are still buying the story that ICANN 
has ruled on content, e.g. re .xxx - or what confinement are you talking 
about? (hint: a fact-based reply is preferred; if you need to ask 
questions, do, and we might get this cleared finally for good.)

(But who is going to do the confining, and who enforces
> violations of that confinement?  Ultimately a political question, anyway.)
> But, that may preclude precisely the solutions that might be best for the
> general public and the world at large.
>
> You seem to be saying you want "us" to build this in narrowly-drawn pieces
> from the bottom up (technically), and I am saying that "we" probably cannot
> do this effectively without constant appeal to the bird's-eye-view from the
> top down (politically), if only to determine what policy realms to avoid in
> the technical policy-making process.
>

That is not an irresolvable conflict. You can have a broader bird's eye 
view without a confining structure.

I consider your PS answered above where it says "red herring."

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

> At the end of the day, while I believe everyone here understands that the
> whole IG endeavor is quite difficult, it may be that many people here don't
> really understand just how *tremendously* difficult this challenge really
> is.  We should all be humble in the face of this challenge, which is "not
> mocked."
>
> Dan
>
> PS -- One of the positively worst things we could possibly do is "build an
> overall encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance" while
> simultaneously claiming (counter to actual fact) that it is really only a
> narrowly-drawn institution addressing strictly non-political technical
> matters.  There are some here who would claim that this is precisely what
> has already been done, and that is why it presents such a profound
> institutional threat.  By allowing political criteria to be imposed on
> technical policy decisions, but then disavowing the political impact, it
> both cripples possible structures of fully public representation while
> allowing privileged political forces to establish genuinely political
> outcomes under the radar.
>
> What do we do about the technical/political overlap, which is growing every
> day?
>
>
>
> At 3:44 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>> Dan,
>>
>> great note. I fully disagree at this stage, but it sets one of the key
>> points of controversy starkly so I'm glad you've sent it out.
>>
>> I do not think that we (who "we" anyway?) are ready to build an overall
>> encompassing, overarching structure for Internet governance.
>>
>> I think that we are still in an early learning stage about what the
>> problems are, who the people who have to come together for each and
>> through which representation, what mechanisms, structures, weights for
>> each stakeholder group, etc.
>>
>> It is still the time to build problem-specific mechanisms, and if needed
>> structures, test them, improve them, and then begin to compare features to
>> see if there really emerge more general patterns.
>>
>> The contrary belongs too much or too closely to the "world government"
>> delusion.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>
>>
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
>>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
>> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
>> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
>> *
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
>>  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Dan Krimm wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:35:12 -0800
>>> From: Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
>>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered, and
>>> how?
>>>
>>> In the greater scheme of things, even confining talk to Internet "users"
>>> may be too narrow, as everyone in society will eventually be affected by
>>> the political ramifications of Internet policy, even if they are not direct
>>> users themselves.  Secondary effects in society can be profound (such as
>>> whether non-users even have the chance to become users in the future, and
>>> whether it might be good for society for increasing numbers of people to be
>>> able to register their own domain names, and thus have more power to choose
>>> among competing service providers in the market).
>>>
>>> It is important to understand that whatever *processes* we set up to govern
>>> Internet policy are not confined to any specific *topics* of governance,
>>> and that a structure set up to govern domain name policy, for example, may
>>> be applied to other policies once it has established authority to govern at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> So, when discussing representation of political interests (including the
>>> political interests of the general public at large), it may be less
>>> effective to break down the realm of governance into topic-oriented
>>> sub-realms.  That could allow nefarious structures to sneak in under the
>>> radar because they are seemingly being applied to only narrow-interest
>>> topics.
>>>
>>> This is a dangerous strategy, if one is trying to protect the public
>>> interest, because a lot of mischief can be done beyond the realm of civil
>>> society attention, if CS decides not to pay attention to process as it
>>> applies to *all* topics of Internet governance.
>>>
>>> What we are doing here is *institution building*.  Once the institution is
>>> in place and its authority has been firmly established, its application can
>>> be reapplied to other topics quite widely.  This is precisely why, for
>>> example, gTLD policy *processes* and *authoritative structures* are of
>>> concern to the entire general public, and not just domain name registrants.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 8:49 PM -0400 12/1/07, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>>>> Can we separate domain name owners from internet users? As George has
>>>> reminded us, almost ALL users will never register a domain name. So
>>>> maybe we
>>>> can leave the domain owners issues aside for a bit and  refer to the users
>>>> issues?
>>>> For example - if we talk about easy and comfortable access to content
>>>> online
>>>> for users (the main thing that I think users want), we'd need to definitely
>>>> talk about native scripts and local content issues. Pricing of access is
>>>> also an issue - if it is unaffordable to get online, then that is
>>>> definitely
>>>> a user issue.
>>>> I think that back and forth about ICANN's structure, how it should have
>>>> been
>>>> and why what currently obtains is worse than what should/could have been is
>>>> far less important than on the ground issues for users.
>>>>
>>>> Jacqueline
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 15:20
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Are Internet users powerless or empowered,
>>>>> and how?
>>>>>
>>>>> George Sadowsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> At the risk of starting yet another questionably productive thread on
>>>>>> this list, I have to comment on your comment below.  I found it an
>>>>>> amazing comment, and perhaps symptomatic of why this list is not as
>>>>>> productive as it could be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 99.999% of Internet users are not drowning in powerlessness! Instead,
>>>>> if
>>>>>> they are drowning in anything, they are drowning in a sea of
>>>>>> extraordinarily rich information service offerings that they couldn't
>>>>>> have dreamed of having access to 10 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> The context in which I use the world "powerless" is in the context of
>>>>> existing and future bodies of internet governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, yes, we users have great power in the marketplace to
>>>>> select
>>>>> ISP's and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we users have virtually no voice in the body that extracts over
>>>>> half
>>>>> a billion dollars (US$) out of the pockets of domain name buyers every
>>>>> year and, at the same, time subjects us to the kangaroo court system of
>>>>> the UDRP and the privacy-busting Whois.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fear and concern that I am expressing is that in bodies of internet
>>>>> governance - and remember a body of governance is a body that exercises
>>>>> a near plenary form of power - that in these bodies, current and
>>>>> present, internet users are denied the means to hold that body, and the
>>>>> decision makers within it, accountable for its actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, my intent is the word "powerless" is interpreted in the
>>>>> context of bodies of governance.
>>>>>
>>>>> 		--karl--
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date:
>>>>> 11/30/2007 21:26
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date:
>>>> 11/30/2007
>>>> 21:26
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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