[governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you¹re replying to me directly:

I don¹t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore¹s
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you¹re offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn¹t define ³how the net was seen²  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don¹t believe there is ³a² regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we¹ve been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it¹s purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: ³Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches,² nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let¹s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the ³internationalization² ws and on
and on.  That said, if there¹s lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I¹ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam¹s self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill



On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>>>> > >> 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.
>  
> ³However, 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?)²
>  
> ³I 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.²
>  
> ³Surely 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.²
>  
> (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 US¹s 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
> society¹s and Œprogressive groups¹ 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 subjectŠ
>  
> 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 Œanyone will agree¹,
> 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
> 


***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/6465d3be/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