[governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

[Parminder]

> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -

> >> implications for IG"

> 

> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem

> this

> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and

> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems

> a

> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially

> walled off by IPR rules or what?

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Bill

> 

 

Bill,  I am not completely happy with the present title but for
clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael
Gurstein of 17th May, which I  quote.

 

“However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public
responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of
broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should
taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information
particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax
on those least able to pay?)”

 

“I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet
Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a
privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
"governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with
the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”

 

“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance
(understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,
supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with
governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that
flow from this.”

 

(ends)

 

Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive
from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy
framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied
direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,
but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of
activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet
policy frameworks. 

 

Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.
documents on US’s idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its
governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an
view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key
infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including
governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its
governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil
society’s and ‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present regime of IG
arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how
transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they
undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the
present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the
manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within
civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG
institutions. Ok, I may be digressing  a bit, but this line of argument does
show the relevance and importance of the subject


 

So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is to analyze and debate how
Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is
now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity,
and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an
infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would
agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance
and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say
‘anyone will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial
and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for
all/ most sectors of social activity.) 

 

I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG
related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think
it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this
workshop.

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM

> To: Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> 

> Hi,

> 

> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be

> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand

> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if

> approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by

> individual

> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if

> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.

> 

> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just

> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of

> consensus

> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to

> mention

> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I

> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the

> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,

> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times

> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the

> two

> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and

> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th

> hour dash to finalize.

> 

> Few specific comments:

> 

> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:

> 

> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :

> >

> >>

> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"

> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -

> to

> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense

> to

> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many

> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the

> title as

> > you suggested.

> 

> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of

> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached

> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about

> "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not

> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent

> to

> deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion

> was

> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing

> now

> as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We

> have

> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make

> clear

> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't

> go

> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.

> 

> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"

> >>

> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet

> >> Governance<?

> >

> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.

> >

> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.

> 

> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really

> explored

> since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has

> been

> done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at

> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that

> is,

> an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast

> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term

> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better

> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?

> 

> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,

> >> technical and private means/instruments"

> >>

> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more

> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?

> >

> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about

> > jurisdiction

> >

> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because

> I

> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet

> (and

> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for

> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my

> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de

> facto

> > extraterritorial effects.

> 

> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the

> idea

> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of

> jurisdiction

> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,

> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also

> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,

> e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of

> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global

> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of

> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;

> other

> architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get

> industry

> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we

> form

> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.

> 

> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -

> >> implications for IG"

> 

> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem

> this

> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and

> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems

> a

> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially

> walled off by IPR rules or what?

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/783b7dda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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