[governance] rights based approach to the Internet
linda misek-falkoff
ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com
Wed Apr 16 14:42:15 EDT 2008
Such a broad smile engendered here. Yes from this e-desk, very interested.
Do a lot with *rights and duties** formulations, a particular fun thing in
law school. If all that workload was fun.
Thanks Michael, Parminder, *et al.* Lead the way in the new WG.
:) LDMF.
P.S.
* With particularity here, two very prominent flavors one often encounters:
(1) *Rights* have *Duties* that come with Rights (same actor);
(2) Our *Rights* impose *Duties* on Others (n-actors) - (not so comfortable
*vice versa* - Others' Rights impose Duties on Us). !!!
On 4/16/08, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A very elegant formulation! Thanks very much Linda.
>
> BTW, I can see the beginnings of a most interesting and fruitful Workshop
> discussion already emerging in our back and forth on this list.
>
> And yes, thank you for the suggestion Parminder, I'm willing to (co?)
> co-ordinate the Working Group towards a "Right to the Internet" Workshop at
> the IGF should such be agreed to within this forum.
>
> MG
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *linda misek-falkoff
> *Sent:* April 16, 2008 2:35 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>
> 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).
>
>
--
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080416/8c8d5634/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