[governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

[William Drake]

Hi Lee,

Actually, you are not disagreeing with me.  I said, in response to Michael,
that "The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right¡¯s
implied by international human rights agreements."  One could argue that the
UDHR, CCPR, CESCR and other instruments provide a basis for asserting that
there is a right whether construed narrowly as access to infrastructure and
services or more broadly per Michael addendum.  But as I added, I¡¯m
skeptical we¡¯d get all that far with this angle, at least with OECD
governments, the private sector, etc. which have resisted expansive readings
of economic and social rights as well as third generation rights, e.g. to
peace, development, and such, and would probably say we're trying to redo
the communications rights battles etc.  Of course, if that doesn't matter,
then it's not a deterrent.

Alternatively, one could argue not that there are global governance
mechanisms presently, but that there should be.  Either formulation would
get away from proposing purely national/regional policies on universal
access as appropriate ws foci, which is part of what has detracted from
efforts to get IGF to focus on the IG issues and opened the way to
anything-goes Internet and society formulations.

Cheers,

Bill

On 4/14/08 9:38 PM, "Lee McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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 Meryem©ös suggestion that for easier scanning subject
> lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I©öm 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©ös
> elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It©ös 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©ös implied by
> international human rights agreements, but I©öm skeptical we©öd 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©öve not talked to, processes you weren©öt 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©öt 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©öt know what ©øthe present IG regime©÷ means.  If you©öre
> 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 imbalances©ö 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 imbalances©ö requiring more than capacity
> building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we©öre talking
> about, I wouldn©öt 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©öm 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©ös 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©öt meet even the
>> canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime.
>>  
>>>> Hence, re: ©øAnyone 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©öt agree to this proposition? That©ös 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 divide©ö issue was interpreted
>> by
>> US, and probably form there taken to G-8©ös 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©öt 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 divide©ö really, and entirely,
>> represented as you say Œnon-commercial aspects©ö  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 Œfalse©ö?
>>  
>>>> I don©öt believe there is ©øa©÷ 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 regime©ö argument extends to dev agenda issue as
>> well.
>> And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what Œproblems©ö
>> and Œissues©ö 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©öt we do an IGC workshop on
>> Œdev agenda in IG©ö, 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©öre replying to me directly:
>> 
>> I don©öt 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©ös
>> 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©öre 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©öt define ©øhow the net was seen©÷  in the US or anywhere else, it was one
>> element in a much larger set of debates.
>> 
>> I don©öt believe there is ©øa©÷ 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©öve been here before).  And per the
>> above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it©ös purely commercial to
>> the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
>> re: ©øAnyone 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©ös 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 ©øinternationalization©÷ ws and on and on.  That
>> said, if there©ös lots of support for this from others besides you, I fine,
>> I©öll 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©ös 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