[governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

[Lee McKnight]

If I may beg to differ with Bill, and agree with Parminder, that actuallyIGF is the perfect place for discussions of universal access as a policy/Internet governance first principle.

Certainly it is an important topic addressed elsewhere, particularly focusing on specific mechanism to enhance access in one domain or another. But considering its implications as a more or less new human right would seem an appropriate topic for a workshop at IGC 08. This view is implicit in much of what IGF, or IGP, or ICANN/ISOC/IETF for that matter, do. So shouldn't it be discussed aloud at IGC?

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 04/14/08 6:39 AM >>>
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 Œstructural 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  Œstructural 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
> Œanyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) Š..
>  
>> >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 Œglobal 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 supportŠ..
> So whether Œtackling the global digital divide¹ really, and entirely,
> represented as you say Œnon-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 Œfalse¹?
>  
>> >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, Œthere 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 Œproblems¹
> and Œissues¹ 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
> Œdev 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]
> 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
> 
> 


____________________________________________________________
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