[governance] rights based approach to the Internet

[Parminder]

> 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

Yes, Karen, we are speaking about a rights based approach to IG and
consequentially the 'requisite IG regime'.

Something like a workshop on - 'A rights based approach to the Internet -
the implications for IG'. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:40 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Michael Gurstein';
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
> Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> 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 gradua
> teinstitute.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/i
> nfo/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


____________________________________________________________
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