[governance] rights based approach to the Internet

karen banks karenb at gn.apc.org
Mon Apr 14 08:10:21 EDT 2008 

hi parminder and all

I haven't been able to follow all of the workshop 
proposal threads, but APC would certainly support 
a workshop advocating a rights based approach to 
internet governance - we've seen constant erosion 
in content focussing on rights and IG since the inception of the IGF process..

i'm not sure that a rights based approach to the 
internet (though very much at the core of APC's 
vision as per the APC IR charter: 
http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/policy/all/apc-internet-rights-charter) 
is the appropriate formulation for the IGF, but i 
imagine you're advocating a workshop that would 
look at a rights based approach to internet governance?

obvisouly, dsicussion of rights to the internet 
would be necessary in rationale/background 
etc..  but if i understand correctly, what would 
be appropriate for the IGF, is what you refer to 
as the 'requisite IGF regime' in relation to rights

karen

At 12:43 14/04/2008, Parminder wrote:
> > In its simplest terms I guess the question is 
> whether there is now the need to state that there is a "Right to the Internet".
>
>Yes. ‘Right to the Internet’ is the precise 
>statement of the issue, and we think it is 
>worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my 
>assertion goes beyond access and right ‘to’ the 
>Internet, where Internet is considered as a 
>given entity, not in itself subject to social 
>and political construction, and therefore to 
>politics and policy. I think the construction of 
>what the Internet is, in all its layers - 
>logical, content, applications etc (and not only 
>the infrastructural layer which provided 
>‘access’ to this Internet) -  itself is as much 
>an issue and space of rights as it is of market 
>based exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen.
>
>Thus ‘right to the Internet’ should include 
>certain rights to what is ‘on’ the Internet, and 
>also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf 
>co-constructivism in education). All this 
>implies a very different basis of IG regime than 
>what we see today. We are looking at a rights 
>based approach to the Internet (not just to 
>access but to the whole of the Internet) rather 
>than a market based approach. And this 
>distinction between these two approaches is 
>almost the staple of development discourse 
>today.  And to move towards such an approach, 
>and the requisite IG regime, we need to 
>deconstruct the basis of the present regime, and 
>the predominant interests it represents, and 
>those it excludes, or under-serves.
>
>
>Parminder
>
>
>----------
>From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:57 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'; 'Singh, Parminder'
>Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>
>Bill and all,
>
>I'll chime in a bit here as well... The early 
>history of the Internet in Developed Countries 
>(I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours 
>for what happened in Canada) is a tangled one in 
>terms of its ultimate directions and to a 
>considerable degree it depended on who you 
>talked to or where you were standing as to which 
>set of priorities seemed uppermost... But that I think is a side issue.
>
>The question that I initially presented was 
>whether or not from a public policy perspective 
>the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a 
>fundamental and necessary service i.e. as a 
>counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the 
>opportunity for democratic participation, and so 
>on.  This came from a reference to statements by 
>Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such 
>a service and that this should be one of the 
>broader presuppostions (in Sweden) underlying 
>decision making around other areas of public policy and programmes.
>
>In its simplest terms I guess the question is 
>whether there is now the need to state that 
>there is a "Right to the Internet" and not 
>simply "Rights concerning the Internet" .  If it 
>could be argued/established/promulgated that 
>there is a "Right to the Internet" (understood 
>in a very broad sense) this would have quite a 
>significant effect in various countries 
>including my own (and your own as well I think) 
>where for example, the government has basically 
>ceded to the private sector a determination of 
>whether (based on the principles "of the 
>market") or not a specific individual, community 
>or region should have a reasonable (fair and 
>equitable) means to achieve access to the Internet.
>
>(FWIW I think as Parminder said some time ago, 
>this may be THE fundamental CS issue in the 
>context of Internet Governance... As I've 
>indicated in this space on a number of occasions 
>to my mind and from where I sit with respect to 
>the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other 
>issues are for most ICT4D users on the ground 
>either derivative of this fundamental question 
>or simply of a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...
>
>MG
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>Sent: April 13, 2008 3:32 AM
>To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
>Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>Hi Parminder,
>
>There are too many conversations going on 
>simultaneously to spend much juice on any one of 
>them, but since you’re replying to me directly:
>
>I don’t 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---Gore’s 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 you’re 
>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 doesn’t define “how the net was seen”  in the 
>US or anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.
>
>I don’t believe there is “a” 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 (we’ve been here before).  And per the 
>above, if there was such a regime, the notion 
>that it’s purely commercial to the exclusion of 
>the referenced broader range is a false 
>dichotomy.  Hence, re: “Anyone would agree that 
>the two kinds of areas of activity require 
>different governance and policy approaches,” 
>nope, not me, I think the issue is misconstructed.
>
>Friendly disagreement, let’s 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 “internationalization” 
>ws and on and on.  That said, if there’s lots of 
>support for this from others besides you, I 
>fine, I’ll 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, Adam’s 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.
>
>“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%5d>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>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
>***********************************************************
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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

More information about the Governance mailing list