[governance] rights based approach to the Internet
linda misek-falkoff
ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com
Wed Apr 16 05:34:38 EDT 2008
Greetings,
And on the matter of "given entitities", it seems likely that some sort of *
jurisprudence* (just in the sense what seems fair and what seems possible)
may well underlie claims of what is due all persons in a culture or
pan-culture.
*Jurisprudence* usually attaches, one might say, to an *ontology* - a *belief
system* surrounding what is posited as existing. Yes, that is a rough
sketch.
But it is interesting to think of *rights and dut*ies in terms of what
exists, that is believed to exist, or claimed to exist.
Since some may or do argue for a difference between what natively exists
such as water and what is built such as a communications network,. it may
be useful to have a foundational reference e.g. to Maslow's hierarchy of
motivating factors (needs).
Here is a colorful if undetailed representation:
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm
We might say the present and ongoing discussion favors seeing the t Internet
as at the basic subsistence level ("Survival") rather than the proportional
(luxury?) "level" of self-actualization. I use the phrase "luxury" with
caution here, having worked with Maslow and I think he did not like that
word, all levels in his model being ostensibly of equal value though at
different stages of developing systems. .
Respectfully and with very best wishes, LDMF.
- Show quoted text -
On 4/14/08, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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]
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>
> > 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
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
Other Affiliations on Request.
n 4/14/08, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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]
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>
> > 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
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
t).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080416/c41b66b9/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list