[governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP

[Lee McKnight]

Parminder, everyone,

I'm hosting Bob Frankston today, the e-spreadsheets, NATs/home nets
co-inventor.

Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own
special style, questioning public and private roles in varying
geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access. 
We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that
workshop.

Lee  

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/17/08 12:42 AM >>>

> 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.

I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue.
Connects IG
to 'development' as little else does. I would say that this is the real
'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG. 

And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is the
main
agenda at the IGF.

Parminder 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM
> To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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