[governance] rights based approach to the Internet

[Parminder]

Bill

 

>I was going to follow Meryem's suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but >I'm unable to think of a
focused >topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

 

I have done it.

 

>Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder's
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial >spaces etc. It's certainly an
important >topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured
discussion.  

 

I suggest we have a workshop on it then. As for my commercial /
non-commercial spaces distinction, it comes from the distinction between
market-based approaches and rights-based approaches which as I point out in
an earlier email, is almost the staple of development discourse today. I
used 'commercial and social/ political (non-commercial) possibilities/
activities' phrase because I thought that on this list opposing market based
approach to a right based approach would find even less understanding/
acceptance. I tried to speak of the issue in North-South neutral manner,
without bringing the 'development angle specifically', but that's what I
really want it to lead to. So, OK if you prefer it this way, I am speaking
of market based approach versus rights based approach to IG. Does it make
sense to you now? 

 

As to whether the access issue at all belongs to IG, or global IG, this is
indeed an interesting point. Before I argue my position on this, I wonder
what really is the substance of the 'dev agenda in IG' you propose if
access/ infrastructure issue is entirely taken away from it. I do not want
to look like trying to push you in a corner on this, but I am really really
very curious. What other areas and issues really constitute the substance of
dev agenda. Not the process, in which terms you always define the DA. Can
there be a process without some amount of definitiveness of the substance
(substantial issues) it serves? I myself do see a lot of non-access issues
as dev agenda, while seeing access also a centrally implicated issue in any
dev agenda. Just want to be sure there is some common ground of
understanding between us on this. APC is kind of defining its principal IG
related strategy in terms of access, so this debate does become important,
when you interpret some IGC's resolution to mean that access just doesn't
constitute IG and should not be discussed at the IGF.

 

>The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right's
implied by international human rights agreements, >but I'm skeptical we'd
get all that far with this angle.

 

Yes, we do plan to do that. And for that purpose the CS needs to build the
initial concepts and discourse, and the initial momentum, which is partly
the intention. 

 

>*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you've not talked to, processes >you weren't involved
with, etc. 

 

This is a strange assertion. Do only those who know 'those people' and have
participated in the 'processes' have the right to talk about them. Sorry,
but to clarify the point, should I then say that you have no right to speak
about 'development processes' because you have not been involved and are not
close to the people who are involved in development etc. I say this just to
show how untenable is your above logic.

 

>McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative orgs.

 

Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim keeps
telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you agreeing
with him?

 

> You should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by >definition means that one cannot
give a damn about social empowerment etc.



I thought we were having a higher level of discussion than to be told
business people can also be good people. I have heard such retorts from the
less intellectually oriented when one discusses structural issues about
capital's and business's mal-influence over policies but I did not expect it
from you. 

 

> I think this is an overly totalizing view of a broad range of actors and
institutions.

> wouldn't prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks and must
be changed.

 

No, I am not doing either. Just advancing arguments regarding the
limitations of an exclusive market based approach, in trying to advocate an
alternative (as an addition/  corrective) right based approach to the
Internet. This for the purpose of persuading others about the advisability
of the IGC putting its weight behind at least opening up a discussion on
this. 

 

>*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of >economic, social and
political activities >you mention.



Of course it is not. Rights based approaches are not incompatible with
market based provisioning. We have right to education, to health etc in many
places while also having commercial provisioning of education, health etc in
the same area/ place. So perhaps, it not I but you who may be creating false
binaries, which I never meant in the first place. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:10 PM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

 

Hi,

I was going to follow Meryem's suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I'm unable to think of a
focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

Michael,

Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder's
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It's certainly an
important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
way to get around this would be to claim the right's implied by
international human rights agreements, but I'm skeptical we'd get all that
far with this angle.

Parminder,

We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on
this, so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful
discussions like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could
plausibly pull together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you've not talked to, processes you weren't involved
with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don't be bummed if
people are not persuaded by it. 
*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
political activities you mention.
*Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for
some). But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You
should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by definition means that one cannot give
a damn about social empowerment etc.
*Again, I don't know what "the present IG regime" means.  If you're
referring to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry
has too much influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should
push for a better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing
view of a broad range of actors and institutions. 
*To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
cases where 'structural imbalances' are thereby clearly identifiable,
countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more
difficult, but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases
there may not be  'structural imbalances' requiring more than capacity
building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we're talking
about, I wouldn't prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
and must be changed, at least not if we want to do more than talk among
ourselves.  The ws I said weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the
previous one will delve deeper into this and I'm lining up speakers and
cosponsors.  

The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that's a plenty full plate.

Best,

Bill 

On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Bill
 
I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And
I take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and
now. Is it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially
ordered on regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than
that. It is to a good extent an industry self regulation regime, which
doesn't meet even the canons of a good commercial activity regulation
regime. 
 
>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.
 
What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that
you don't agree to this proposition? That's all is what I meant when I said
'anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) ... 
 
>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 have great problem with how 'global digital divide' issue was interpreted
by US, and probably form there taken to G-8's meeting which gave birth to
DOT Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP
and other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and
practice in developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving
initial impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of
the present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign
roots, and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in
telecom and other IT areas. Don't want to go into further elaboration, but
needed to mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and
support... So whether 'tackling the global digital divide' really, and
entirely, represented as you say 'non-commercial aspects'  of the thinking
that shaped present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
 
In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,
and not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities
(which are increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less
to developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is
the basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global
IG regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in
IG if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if
so, what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
dichotomy is as you say 'false'?
 
>I don't believe there is "a" regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing >access,

Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right.
If not, 'there being no one regime' argument extends to dev agenda issue as
well. And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what
'problems' and 'issues' with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire
your imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the
structural problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don't we do an IGC
workshop on 'dev agenda in IG', which I am sure you want to do, and think
APC also mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and
yes, ITfC also have some views on it. 
 
Parminder 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>  
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/14269616/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