[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Garth Graham]

On 9-Jan-08, at 6:36 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 09/01/2008, at 1:32 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> ..... As regards the full complement of representatives who might  
>> broadly be seen to represent various aspects of civil society, we  
>> believe it is the best interests of stakeholder balance,  
>> transparent operation and reporting, and involvement of a wider  
>> group of stakeholders, that at least 75% of the civil society
>> representatives be chosen from a broad range of candidates  
>> submitted by the Civil Society Caucus."
>
> ......  The IGC is a very elite group, and I think it is vain of us  
> to think that we can represent civil society.  Most ordinary  
> Internet users have never heard of the IGF or WSIS, and aside from  
> the geeks who might join the Internet Society, are not going to  
> have a voice if the civil society representation on the MAG is to  
> be constituted by IGC and ISOC nominees.

I'd like to add a general reflection on just how broad the gap in  
"representation" between the elite and the ordinary actually is.  I  
do this from a Canadian perspective, the one country where I have at  
least some up-close experience of the state of play of related public  
policy, such as it is.

There an absence of public debate in Canada about what some Canadians  
call "Telecom Policy," and some Americans call "Network Neutrality,  
and what this list probably ought to mean by "Internet Governance,"  
all facets of the same gem.  This is true at all levels of  
government, but the absence is most startling at the local government  
level.

About a year ago, I shepherded the application of Telecommunities  
Canada to become an ICANN "At Large Structure."  Telecommunities  
Canada then acted in cooperation with other organizations to assist  
in the North American RALO”s formation, the last remaining stone in  
ICANN's ALAC arch to be hoisted into place.  There were some quite  
reasonable objections to Telecommunities Canada's application,  
technically related to its form of organization under the existing  
ALAC rules.  In fact, I think it's fair to say the debate over  
Telecommunities Canada's application in particular was a sort of  
catalyst for the NARALO's formation.  Telecommunities Canada was  
certainly used as a key example in the changing of the application  
rules.

Or to put that another way, just by showing up we already have  
exercised some influence on ICANN.  That part wasn't so hard.  But  
we'd got in in order to get out.  There were also some quite  
reasonable cautions that the ALAC's highly specialized (i.e. elite)  
agendas probably weren't going to be of interest to TC.  In the short  
term, that's certainly proving to be true.  We plunged into the ALAC  
because we assumed there was some potential to gain leverage in  
addressing the way that Internet Governance issues will impact on  
telecommunications policy reform in Canada. And, if there is a way to  
do that, we haven't found it yet.

Telecommunities Canada saw ICANN participation as a means to an end,  
and not an end in itself.  We have our own need to act, and to be  
seen acting, to involve Canadians in public policy issues related to  
Internet Governance and to the role of the Internet in Canada's socio- 
economic development and political evolution.  But those who said  
that our leap of faith in the potential utility of ICANN  
participation was too great were entirely correct, at least in the  
short term.  The idea of standing before a municipal council in  
Canada, even one contemplating an open fibre network, and explaining  
a current list of ICANN issues (or the issues usually addressed on  
this list) simply boggles the mind.   Canadian politicians at all  
levels of government are well aware that there is no public concern  
or even interest, and they therefore feel no need to add anything to  
the public policy agenda.  And yet, to me, those are exactly the  
"forums" where the real "Internet Governance" issues need to be  
addressed.  We have all become utterly reliant on a public utility  
without the slightest notion of what it actually does or how it works.

I was encouraged to learn that the President of ICANN, Vint Cerf,  
speaking at the NARALO/ICANN MOU signing ceremony, saw Internet  
Governance issues in far broader terms.  Referring specifically to  
the outreach responsibilities, he noted the ALAC's essential role in  
“communicating the meaning of the internet's evolution in the context  
of a collaborative ecology.”  There is nothing narrow or "merely  
technical" in initiating and engaging in public dialogue that takes a  
collaborative ecology into account.  I haven't yet got the nerve to  
try that idea out with a municipal council, but I think I might.

>
> Whilst what is needed in the longer term is a serious programme of  
> outreach to ordinary Internet users, ........

In a country as connected as Canada, there is another word for  
"ordinary Internet users."  They are called citizens.  Because the  
best route across that enormous gap most likely lurks in the concept  
of use, we are looking for the points of common interest that will  
focus their concerns.  Telecommunities Canada advocates for control  
of open broadband networks as a local responsibility.  But, in  
thinking about how to support public dialogue about that  
responsibility, this is leading us to raise a broader question first  
- a very basic question that still gets ignored in Canada.  In "the  
longer term," it still seems to me that the real heart of Internet  
Governance becomes the need to ask - In our digital age, what kind of  
a society do we want?

GG


____________________________________________________________
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