[governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

[Parminder]

I think that if all of us are concerned about the development potential and
impact of the Internet, we should be seriously discussing what needs to be
done about it in engagement with people who are in 'development' for long
(it is not the intention to appropriate that position for myself). And do it
as a mainstream activity here, and not in passing while discussing CIRs.
That would be the proof of the pudding. And I remember McTim once asking for
a discussion on 'right to development' to be taken off the list to where
ever it belongs.

 

In this respect it is not difficult to see, as Michael suggests, that we
need to first analyze the whole field of the 'effects' of technical policy
that we seek, and then work backwards on what kind of technical policy will
suffice for such purposes. Putting it in terms of technical versus policy
(or domain) expertise balance needed to develop technopolicy that Avri spoke
of, we can accordingly build a proper protocol of relationship between and
respective roles for the two. In analyzing what is really that we, as a
society, want and most desire, domain/ policy expertise counts most
(although a broad knowledge of technical possibilities is required) and once
this is establish we can work backwards to see what technical options to
take and pursue (and here technical expertise will count most). Obviously,
both kinds of 'expertise' need to interact with each other in some mutual
understanding and short cycles on interaction and mutual-influencing.....

 

It is in this respect that when many techies just decide that they know THE
social issue - of more and more 'access' to 'technology', and that's about
it -we have a problem at hand. And that 'problem' is at the centre of our
current discussions. And it is in this context that Michael has been
presenting the very useful alternative conception of 'effective use' that
goes further into the complexity of how exactly can, and does, Internet
interact with and impact development processes... And it is just not about
having only 'passive access' (a concept much deconstructed in development
discourse). Some kind of technology availability may be considered a
precondition for new tech based development processes, but 'technology' and
'access' themselves are not some givens - they themselves are shaped by
their uses and other social contexts. 

 

So, it is not only about how 'technology' and 'access' that impacts
'development' but also the reverse - how concerns and context of
'development' impact the very nature of 'technology' and of 'access'. This
is something that most of the 'technical community' is not very comfortable
exploring. At present it has mostly been the concerns and context of
Northern societies, and generally that of advantaged sections of all
societies, that has influenced and shaped the development of Internet... We
need to figure out what will it entail for 'development' concerns to start
shaping the further development of Internet... that's the development issue
in IG.

 

So when a lot among the 'technical community' keep asserting again and again
that they KNOW that the development issue is of spreading the edge of the
Internet, and they will prefer to engage with it, rather than the 'divisive'
and 'largely artificial' issues of the very nature of the Internet - which,
at least partly, is determined by the nature of its governance - and
(therefore) also the governance (including of its core) of the Internet, it
well, bugs those who are involved in development activity. Because to them,
the message that gets relayed is, WE MAKE THE TECHNOLOGY, YOU JUST USE IT.
And what these people of the technical community either do not recognize or
choose to ignore is that in this 'we' who wishes to appropriate the
exclusive privilege of 'making and determining the technology' includes
vested interests - big business, the rich people with more cash (a point
from McTim's email which I will address separately), and countries of the
North, in general - and in defending non-negotiation of the basic premises
and principles governing technology development they are just being partisan
to these interests. This is the basic nature of the interest that those
involved in development activity have in engaging with IG, including
discussing CIRs. And they do not like to be told that they do not understand
their own problems and that they should concentrate on access and not other
issues of IG like CIRs.

 

'Development' is not only about the edges of the network, it is also about
the core..

 

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: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]

> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:03 AM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community

> or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

> 

> Can I once again insert the comment (the discussion goes back some 5

> years or so to parallel discussions that were held concerning the CS

> contributions to WSIS Geneva) that the issue of "access", especially as

> conventionally presented by telcos and service providers is really about

> marketing or developing new markets for their services.

> 

> The issue from a "development" perspective is not "access" but the

> opportunity for "effective use" which includes but goes beyond access to

> involve training, language, hardware and software design, service

> design, funding and governance.  All of which in one way or another are

> necessary components for ICTs to have a developmental impact on the

> ground.

> 

> Following this current discussion at a distance it seems to me that the

> notion of "effective ICT use" rather bridges between "access" issues and

> CIR issues (while pushing both of these into the background) since CIRs

> are, along with basic "access" simply pre (but of course necessary)

> conditions for effective uses.

> 

> I must say as well, that it is truly astonishing and perhaps a measure

> of how disconnected this particular segment of CS seems to be with the

> real world of ICTs (and developoment) on the ground, that we should be

> going over this same ground again after all this time.

> 

> What it seems to me we should be arguing for from a "development"

> perspective is that the pre-conditions for the range of effective uses

> be put in place and by that I include things like community based

> e-health, community based e-resource management, community based

> e-enabled local economic development, community based e-learning

> initiatives, community based e-enabled emergency and disaster response,

> local e-governance and so on.

> 

> Precisely what "access" or CIRs are required for these and the range of

> other effective uses, warrants a considerable measure of research and

> analysis by those best qualified to undertake this, but shifting the

> ground of debate from empty rhetoric concerning "access" or non-real

> world (including LDC's) discussions of CIRs to practical discussions on

> how to build a robust and democratic infrastructure to support these

> seems to me to be the appropriate task for CS and to be the basis for an

> appropriate intervention by CS into the IGF.

> 

> MG

> 

> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.

> Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development Ste.

> 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver BC CANADA v6z 2s1

> http://www.communityinformatics.net

> tel./fax +1-604-602-0624

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

> Sent: September 8, 2007 12:28 AM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Guru at ITfC'

> Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet

> community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

> 

> 

> 

> While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on

> > critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true

> > that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet

> > Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the

> 

> > financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I

> > understand that people fear debates on CIR.

> 

> Jeannette

> 

> But, do you find something strange in the fact that all those who were

> thoroughly involved in 'financing ICTD' debates and other related

> processes during the WSIS ARE the ones now calling for a discussion on

> CIRs (if you want I can list them out), and all those who say CIRs

> should not be discussed just because it may take attention away from the

> more important issue of access were NOWHERE to be seen in the WSIS

> financing debates (I can also list them)...

> 

> I can also tell you that many of the most vocal in this current 'access

> is more important than CIRs' campaign (I refer mainly to the private

> sector, but also some others) actually sabotaged the 'financing ICTD'

> debates and possibilities of concrete action and follow up etc.... So,

> you can hardly blame us if our primary feeling towards this campaign is

> of being amused, and our language on this matter sometimes takes a

> somewhat sharp edge.

> 

> And I also have in my recent email asked all those with this new

> interest in access and financing (which is all about different models)

> what have they to say about the removal of key points from 'access'

> agenda where models alternative to the dominant ones (including

> community owned and community based one, and those involving public

> finance - both terms, directly taken from the WSIS texts), are sought to

> be discussed as well. How does throttling such discussion impact

> 'access' and financing ICTD for the benefits of those currently

> excluded.

> 

> What are your views on this, and well, those of others of the 'access is

> more important than CIRs' campaign?

> 

> 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: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]

> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:31 PM

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC

> > Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet

> > community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

> >

> >

> >

> > Guru at ITfC schrieb:

> > > Completely agree with Milton .... Why is Access and CIR an 'either

> > > or' situation? Why should discussion on CIR be perceived to be at

> > > the cost

> > of

> > > discussing access.

> > >

> > > Redistribution of power (influence over governance processes) is not

> > > any less vital an issue than the actual provision of access. To me

> > > it is

> > obvious

> > > that such redistribution is a part and even a pre-requisite to

> > meaningful

> > > provision of equitable access. If some groups/countries have

> > > disproportionate share of power/authority, what makes anyone believe

> > that

> > > the sharing of resources will not be in a manner inequitable to the

> > rest,

> > > who are out of this arrangement. Should we live on the 'goodness'

> > > and

> > 'good

> > > intentions' of those in power, doling out largesse?

> > >

> > > It would be great for CS/IGC to come out speaking for reform of the

> > current

> > > arrangements towards greater democratization in Rio.

> > >

> > > On a lighter vein ... On Milton's statement that "It is important to

> > point

> > > out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not

> > > what

> > she

> > > believes", it would be interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth

> > > :-

> > )

> >

> > Hi Guru, I don't think of myself as a horse. Whatever. Milton is right

> > that I was reporting about what I hear people say. My own position is

> > somewhat inbetween the one that Milton expressed and the one that I

> > described. While it is true that discussions on access and discussion

> > on critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also

> > true that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on

> > Internet Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues

> > such as the financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved.

> > This is why I understand that people fear debates on CIR. Personally I

> 

> > have always argued in favor of discussing the future of Internet

> > Governance in case that is what you were asking about. jeanette

> > >

> > > Guru

> > > IT for Change, Bangalore

> > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

> > > www.ITforChange.net | A man's worst difficulties begin when he is

> > > able to do as he

> > likes.~Thomas

> > > Huxley~

> > >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]

> > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:07 AM

> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder

> > > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet

> > community

> > > or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >> -----Original Message-----

> > >> 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all

> > >> public attention although other issues, particularely access, are

> > >> what most people in developing countries really care about. As long

> 

> > >> as they are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the

> 

> > >> USG in Internet Governance.

> > >

> > > It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately

> > > reporting

> > what

> > > she hears, not what she believes.

> > >

> > > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it

> > > at

> > the

> > > Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of

> > > British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries

> > don't

> > > care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access.

> > > And

> > when

> > > I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country,

> > > and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global

> > > forums

> > were

> > > Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that

> > > line

> > of

> > > dialogue came to a rather abrupt end.

> > >

> > > The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing

> > internet

> > > resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom

> > > access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just

> > > shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate

> > > into, oh, 230

> > additional

> > > access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000.

> > >

> > > I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet.

> > > It

> > may

> > > be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments

> > > in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds

> 

> > > are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism

> 

> > > of

> > ICANN

> > > unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate

> > > and inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for

> > > future

> > GigaNet

> > > symposia.

> > >

> > > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses,

> > > we

> > are

> > > starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime

> > > won't

> > even

> > > consider it because it would upset their control. And there are

> > > serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6

> > > address distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL

> > > countries is

> > just

> > > crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who

> > > will be

> > the

> > > primary source of demand for address space in the years to come.

> > >

> > > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from

> > > multilingual

> > new

> > > TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries.

> > >

> > > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue.

> > >

> > > The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and

> > > dichotomies.

> > But I

> > > am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage

> > > discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005

> > > WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to

> > > repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible

> > > lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty

> > > policy issues there.

> > >

> > > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own

> > domestic

> > > ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the

> > > rules

> > for

> > > getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been

> > written

> > > in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules

> > > is

> > their

> > > substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are

> > > they equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we

> > > actually have a real discussion of these issues.

> > >

> > > --Milton Mueller

> > >

> > >

> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.

> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> > > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date:

> > > 9/6/2007 8:36 AM

> > >

> > > ____________________________________________________________

> > > 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

> 

> 

> !DSPAM:2676,46e24f4786779876916210!

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070909/3d0a2195/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070909/3d0a2195/attachment.txt>