[governance] Rights Based Approach to the Internet

[Michael Gurstein]

Bill,
 
I've been somewhat neutral on whether or not there should be a workshop on
Internet Rights or in Parminder's formulation "Commercial or
Non-Commercial".
 
However, I'd like to make a few points in response to your note below...
    * I'm not sure that "Right to the Internet" is the same as "access as a
right"... I've spent a lot of my time in the last number of years arguing
that there is a difference between "Internet access" as a "Right" i.e. the
means to download and view; and "Internet use" as a right i.e. the means to
make "effective use" of the Internet for the range of individual, community
and other applications/uses/opportunities which the Internet presents.  So
to my mind at least a WS on Right to the Internet goes rather broader than
simply issues of "access" and "availability" although of course those are
implied...
    * while "access" is for the most part the domain of national and
regional policies many of the multilateral and bilateral development
oriented agencies are active in this area and so discussion on global
regimes would not be out of line (guidelines, priorities, standards etc.)
    * finally it seems to me that the three areas which you see as being of
most direct interest i.e. "mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction"
while being of direct concern to those with a non-governmental (mostly I
would suggest an "academic" i.e. critical but not normative) concern in the
"governance" area are not to my mind at least, of that much direct relevance
to conventional and broadly based "Civil Society" (understood as
"normative") concerns.  
 
>From a specifically and if you want "narrowly" Civil Society perspective, a
"Workshop on Right to the Internet" is precisely what CS should be
advocating as only through an acceptance of this approach is it possible to
develop a consistent and Civil Society anchored perspective (rather than
"technical" or "academic") on any of the other issues. (I'm afraid that this
takes us full circle back to the discussion on the nature of Civil Society
but what else can one expect in a discussion of and by Civil Society where
the intention is to articulate a perwspective in a specific subject matter
domain where there is not as yet any clearly articulated normative
framework.
 
MG
  

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: April 14, 2008 3:40 AM
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.  

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] 
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/babde878/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