[governance] Re: rights based approach to the Internet

Mon Apr 14 09:40:36 EDT 2008

Parminder,

*I specifically said you have every right to pose caricatures, and then you
accuse me of saying you don¹t.
*I¹m sorry if suggesting you might talk to some of the people you are
caricaturing in order to understand what they actually think is
insufficiently intellectual and high level.
*You offer a false binary, I question it, then you switch to another binary
and say I¹m using a false binary.  Neat trick.
*DA on IG can address lots of things without doing non-IG issues, e.g. IG
mechanisms pertaining to core resources, technical standardization, network
security, international interconnection, e-commerce, e-contracting,
networked trade in digital goods and services, digital intellectual
property, jurisdiction and choice of law, speech and social conduct,
cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy and consumer protection, dispute
resolution, as well as larger ICT gov mechanisms that have some bearing on
Internet development and use, e.g. telecom, spectrum, etc. I¹ve said this
repeatedly, you know it, and your objective in this particular game is
obvious. 

Not interested in spending time on conversations not conducted in good
faith.  

BD

On 4/14/08 3:02 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Bill
>  
>> >I was going to follow Meryem¹s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
>> lines be changed to reflect the contents, but >I¹m 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 Parminder¹s
>> elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial >spaces etc. It¹s 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/ activities¹ 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 specifically¹, but that¹s 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 IG¹ 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 IGC¹s
> resolution to mean that access just doesn¹t constitute IG and should not be
> discussed at the IGF.
>  
>> >The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right¹s
>> implied by international human rights agreements, >but I¹m skeptical we¹d 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 you¹ve not talked to, processes >you weren¹t involved
>> with, etc. 
>  
> This is a strange assertion. Do only those who know those people¹ and have
> participated in the processes¹ 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 processes¹ 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.
>  
> Don¹t 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 capital¹s
> and business¹s 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
>> > wouldn¹t 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 Meryem¹s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
> lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I¹m 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 Parminder¹s
> elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It¹s 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 right¹s implied by international human rights agreements, but I¹m
> skeptical we¹d 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 you¹ve not talked to, processes you weren¹t involved
> with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
> orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don¹t 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 don¹t know what ³the present IG regime² means.  If you¹re 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 imbalances¹ 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 imbalances¹ requiring more than capacity building and some
> institutional reforms.  It depends what we¹re talking about, I wouldn¹t
> 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 I¹m 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, that¹s 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 doesn¹t meet even the
> canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime.
>  
>> >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.
>  
> 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
> don¹t agree to this proposition? That¹s 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 divide¹ issue was interpreted by
> US, and probably form there taken to G-8¹s 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. Don¹t 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 divide¹ really, and entirely,
> represented as you say non-commercial aspects¹  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 false¹?
>  
>> >I don¹t believe there is ³a² 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 regime¹ argument extends to dev agenda issue as well.
> And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these  and what problems¹
> and issues¹ 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 don¹t we do an IGC workshop on
> dev agenda in IG¹, 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 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
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/9b68481e/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