[governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Mon Mar 17 00:09:18 EDT 2008
Michael,
If I'm understanding your "Swedish" comments, you are suggesting that the
Internet has become (is becoming) the delivery vehicle for government
services and that CS must factor the implications of this development into
the governance of the Internet. A few thoughts on this and our times.
First, I agree. Both at the local level here in New York City and in
Washington, there is a drift toward a dependence on the Internet for
delivery of government services.
Second, in some venues here in the U.S., the scope and tone of the network
neutrality discussion has assumed alarming directions. After witnessing the
recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on network neutrality, Susan
Crawford commented, "We're seeing the moment when Hollywood, law
enforcement, and the network access providers publicly attempt to join hands
in favor of monitored/monetized network access." And if, as you say,
governments and the delivery of government services are becoming dependent
on the availability of a robust Internet, there exists a fourth interest to
join Hollywood, law enforcement, and the network access providers in
demanding a reconfigured Internet.
Third, many years ago I recall reading in Eric Barnouw's "Empire: History of
Broadcasting in the United States" detailing how our current broadcasting
regulation came about. I can't recall the specifics, but civil society was
engaged in that debate, speaking on behalf of the public interest, with
different voices and at one another's throats. 10 years ago, when the net
was on the rise and AT&T in pieces, I recall a delight that there seemed to
be no one, no possibility for shackling the dreams enabled by the Internet.
Fourth, now I'm not so sure. A couple of years ago I recall hearing one of
my elected representatives say, in reference to the Internet, that "we might
have to end this thing." Being somewhat my senior, and not living on the
net, I presumed ignorance. But today I can imagine a serious attempt to put
the genie back in the box. Now I don't think I'll see success on that front.
But the amount of damage that can be done in trying to achieve this is
immense. With a gun and bomb war started in the face of the Internet's full
capabilities not 5 years ago, I don't imagine undertaking a similar blunder
on behalf of some imagined bogeyman is behind us. And Michael, I don't know
about Canada, but in my state and my nation's capitols, our leaders are
starting to see child abusers behind every computer screen. A "war" to
annihilate them is not unthinkable.
So I agree that CS needs to factor in the role of government services. And I
hope I'm quite wrong, but on a broader front, CS needs to unite, reorganize,
and reenergize to head off some gargantuan stupidity.
Tom Lowenhaupt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: "'Parminder'" <parminder at itforchange.net>; <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP
liability in Europe: good news from Sweden
I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and extrapolation
from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments...
Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct (or could
be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have been
moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for Internet
access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only available off
the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online filing
of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus quicker
access to refunds where appropriate and so on).
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.
MG
-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein'
Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP
liability in Europe: good news from Sweden
> I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is
> unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and
> thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a
> a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"),
> presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air
> rather than on the order of
> a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank
> account.
>
Thanks Mike for pointing to this...
Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a
developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an issue of
developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity
infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in the North,
policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more markets
for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor agencies,
including many international NGOs, through control over purse strings, as
well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy and
practice frameworks for ICTD.
It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first from a
government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues) rather
than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive force.
I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue here,
even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use the
argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to be
debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market
infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public well
being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really beyond me.
Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep disappearing
(even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place) from
IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details are
already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front in IG
area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But the moment
anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as important
issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that governance
issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit funny.
(sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.)
And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive issues - of
what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against either
allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or plainly,
what Meryem called as 'inertia games.
I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG, how
many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we are, what
and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS front in IG
area... and such.
I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased representation on
the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a
possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS vacuum in
the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage.
Parminder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP
> liability in Europe: good news from Sweden
>
> This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet
> governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of exactly
> what is being "governed"...
>
> I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is
> unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden and
> thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated as a
> a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"),
> presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air
> rather than on the order of
> a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a bank
> account.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org
> [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org]
> On Behalf Of Vera Franz
> Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM
> To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list
> Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe:
> good news from Sweden
>
> "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the
> right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet
> subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights has
> met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an
> Internet subscription is a
> wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a society
> where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The
> government
> has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal."
>
> ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of
> Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily.
> http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd
>
> --
> Vera Franz
> Program Manager
> Information Program
> <www.soros.org/ip>
> Open Society Foundation
> 100, Cambridge Grove
> London W6 0LE
> phone +44 20 7031 0219
> fax +44 20 7031 0247
>
>
>
>
> This message might contain confidential information and is protected
> by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete it
> and do not make use of or copy it.
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
>
> !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981!
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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