FW: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other...

[Michael Gurstein]

Thanks Garth for you very interesting commentary on my original post,
Morfin's somewhat parallel discussion and overall the state of being on line
and its relationship to "governance through the Internet". 

As I've said in this electronic space several times in the past this latter
i.e. "governance through the Internet" is a subject which I consider to be
of rather more interest and longer term significance than "governance of the
Internet" which is the current pre-occupation of the Internet Governance
list (and caucus) whatever the possible ambiguity of the name). (Recognizing
of course, that "governance through the Internet" is intimately connected
with "governance of the Internet" but in the form of "figure" (in relation
to "ground")).

Let me make a few other comments interspersed within an edited version of
your note...

-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] 
Sent: March 3, 2008 9:41 AM
To: governance
Cc: Michael Gurstein; Ronda Hauben
Subject: Re: [governance] WSIS, ICT4D, the IGF and other...

Someone on this list once identified the only true TLD as "the  
individual."  

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE RELATED THIS NOTION TO "ENUM" BUT I THINK THERE IS A
VERY CLOSE CONNECTION... IF WE DO MAKE THIS CONNECTION I.E. THAT THERE IS
(OR QUITE SOON WILL BE) A UNIQUE PERSONAL IDENTIFIER IN THE ELECTRONIC WORLD
("TELEPHONE" NUMBER, URL, IP NUMBER, TLD ...?) AND THAT THIS IS
"TRANSFERRABLE"/USABLE THROUGH THE RANGE OF INCREASINGLY CONVERGENT MEDIA
THEN AT SOME POINT THERE IS THE POSSIBIILTY/INEVITABILITY OF AS YOU SAY, THE
ONLY TRUE TLD BECOMING "THE INDIVIDUAL"... AND THIS, AS I GUESS YOU ARE
IMPLYING, CERTAINLY CASTS THE DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE (AND
LONGER TERM GOVERNANCE) OF ICANN IN A RATHER DIFFERENT LIGHT! 
 
...

I became curious to see what might be revealed about the future of  
organizational interactions in Internet Governance by axially mapping  
these two continuums against each other. I attach the graphic I  
produced to do this as a pdf file below.   I gave it the title, "The  
only true TLD is the Individual," because, in effect, the graphic  
illustrates a scenario, and that's a good title for a possible  
future.  My primary conclusion from this analysis is that we are  
defining the necessary stake holders in Internet Governance far too  
narrowly.  

I'M WONDERING HOW CURRENTLY ACTIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA OF DIGITAL
IDENTITY MANAGEMENT (AND PARTICULARLY THE EVIDENT TENSION BETWEEN THOSE WHO
SEE INSTITUTIONS AS THE GUARANTORS OF DIGITAL IDENTITY AND THOSE WHO SEE THE
INDIVIDUAL MAINTAINING THAT ROLE FOR THEMSELVES...) MIGHT CONNECT HERE... 


This next part  of this note is going to seem like a segue at first.   
But it will allow me to add in my own key driver - the nature and  
role of community online.  On first coming into the Internet, it was  
apparent to me that distributed collaboration in community online was  
becoming a significant factor in social organization.  I still see no  
reason to alter that faith.  Morfin challenged his readers to supply  
their own visions.  Here is mine ...

Effective communities are composed of individuals who choose to act  
in a common space and who share a sense of commitment and  
responsibility to others in that space.  Communities are dynamic and  
self-organizing.  This is the basis of their formation and  
governance.  Acting to realize the opportunities of community as it  
goes online requires a vision of open systems of access, design,  
practice, and policy debate. The internet as designed expresses that  
vision directly.  The internet is a global commons and a public good  
that mirrors the governance of community online.  It is fundamental  
to the networked structure of a Learning Society.  Changes to  
internet governance should not impede the development of the internet  
as a commons.

HAVE YOU READ MY NEW BOOK... IF SO, HOW DOES WHAT I'M ARGUING THERE FIT INTO
WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING HERE...
http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00012372/01/WHAT_IS_COMMUNITY_INFORMATICS_r
eading.pdf


I have looked in several places that should reasonably supply a  
useful definition of e-governance and found that they don't.  So here  
below, for the purposes of ICT4D and people-centric distributed  
governance, is my own definition:

"E-governance is the uses of ICTs in the exercise of power by various  
levels of government so that all people, particularly the poor and  
marginalized, can influence policy, improve their livelihoods and  
gain a greater voice in the public decision making process.  E- 
governance changes behavior in relation to power in the direction of  
open and collaborative communities of interaction."

I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS GARTH AS E-GOVERNANCE FOR ME IS NOT ABOUT
GOVERNMENTS SHARING WITH CITIZENS THE OPPORTUNITY TO "INFLUENCE" (I.E. TOP
DOWN) BUT RATHER CITIZENS DIRECTLY SHARING (VIA ICTS) IN THE PROCESS OF
GOVERNANCE WITH EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HOWEVER THAT MIGHT BE ORGANIZED
AND WHATEVER THE RELATIONSHIP MIGHT BE OF THIS WITH EXISTING REPRESENTATIVE
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES.


Being online allows us to see more clearly a key shift in our  
assumptions about the structure of society - that a "person" is a  
network in a society of networks.  The scale of relationship is  
fractal, not linear. The identities we assume in relationship are  
particular to the situations that occur.  They emerge from, or are  
grounded in, the choices we make.  The "individual" in these  
"situated" relationships is not classically isolated person assuming  
a contract that is imposed by the society they inhabit.  They are  
themselves an emergent composite of physical and social relationships  
that are networked.  We don't just adapt to the world as if it were a  
fixed thing.  Interdependently, we participate in the world and thus  
change its nature.  We then adapt to an altered nature in which we  
have participated.  Interaction has consequences.  Netizens accept  
responsibility for the consequences of their interactions.

IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THIS AGAIN IS DIRECTLY CONSISTENT (AND A
DEEPENING) OF THE APPROACH I'VE TRIED TO ARTICULATE IN "WHAT IS COMMUNITY
INFORMATICS...


What is really at issue, or central to that looming necessary public  
debate, is identity online or the autonomous expression of the self  
within a fractal structure of social organization that is truly  
different.  It's the individual who decides to connect and it's the  
Internet (TCP/IP) that merely makes the connection.  It is vital to  
hold fast to that simplicity.

AS ABOVE,

BEST,

MG


GG

On 18-Feb-08, at 10:42 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> Post-WSIS policy discussions were (at least informally) meant to be
> proceeded with on the governance side through the IGF and on the
> ICT4D side
> through the Global Alliance for ICT4D (i.e. the GAID which morphed  
> from the
> UN's ICT4D Task Force when that agency sunsetted in December 2005...
>
> Since then, the IGF has captured more or less all of the attention of 
> CS, and seems well on the way to becoming some sort of "agency" and
> focal point
> for all forms and measures of post-WSIS substantive policy  
> discussions cf.
> Don Maclean's recent post on Sustainable Development and the IGF,  
> and Tom
> Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a Cities TLD theme.
>
> In the meantime the GAID publicly abjured itself from a "policy role" 
> (the Santa Clara meeting), attempted to establish itself as a
> programmatic/implementation body (through its partnership with  
> Intel and
> through its adoption (as its own) of various already existing  
> programmatic
> initiatives (Telecentres.org, the African connectivity  
> initiative)). In
> addition, the GAID adopted for itself a completely non-transparent and
> top-down governance structure and only infrequently surfaced as the
> sponsor/co-sponsor of various events in various places with little
> coherence, virtually no frameworks for non-centralized  
> participation, and
> little visible contribution to ICT4D "policy".
>
> In the absence of any "there" being "there", the IGF has, through its 
> own vague adoption of a "development" mandate (and "access" as a 
> theme)
> begun a
> measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space.
> ...........
>
> To conclude this ramble, I do not think that the IGF is an appropriate 
> forum for ICT4D policy discussion (not including the very very small 
> sub- section
> where ICT4D and IG issues narrowly defined overlap...)
>
> The communities (particularly on the CS side) do not overlap in
> representation, knowledge bases, interest, or overall desired
> outcomes (for
> the events).  ICT4D needs to have its own policy forum (I guess a  
> subsidiary
> spun off group from the IGF if properly constituted might work) and
> particularly one where the necessary voices of grassroots ICT4D  
> folks can
> make themselves heard.



____________________________________________________________
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