[governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in Europe: good news from Sweden

[Michael Gurstein]

Hi Suresh (and Tom),

Yes certainly it is understandable that ISPs may wish to exert this kind of
control including in the context of Internet access as a public good (not
necessarily a public utility which I would understand as having to do with
the matter of ownership... In the approach I am suggesting whether the
Internet is or is not "publicly owned" is a pragmatic issue but that it is
approached in terms of policy, as a "public service", is not.)

However, the issue here is not simply whether or not such oversight by ISPs
may be necessary but rather what oversight of the ISPs might be necessary
and possible to ensure that the public interest in these matters is
protected.

There is underlying this discussion a significant divide between those who
have trust or at least some degree of optimism (hope?) in the capacity of
publicly accountable institutions to ensure the delivery and maintenance of
a "public service" such as, I'm suggesting, the Internet; and those who
(perhaps based on direct and extremely sad recent experience of a particular
global superpower) have little faith that such is possible.

I think that the response to this deep uneasiness is not to reject the
notion of the use of public means to ensure the public interest but rather
to attempt in whatever way possible to ensure that those processes are
accountable and responsible and this I believe should be the goal of CS
including in this context since I see no way in which CS can as a group
achieve the degree of coherence and consensus of vision or will sufficient
to become an independent stakeholder in these decision processes.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: March 16, 2008 9:19 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Thomas Lowenhaupt'; 'Michael Gurstein'
Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP
liability in Europe: good news from Sweden


I will not enter the network neutrality debate here - but will restrict
myself to pointing out that even where internet access is treated as a
public utility, it must be possible to shut it off for abuse / spam type
reasons (temporarily or permanently, as the situation demands)

ISPs consider it a best practice to use walled gardens, to isolate infected
PCs that are emitting malware from the network so all the PCs are able to
access are antivirus / windows update etc, as well as the ISP support pages.

ISPs also consider it a best practice to shut down connectivity if the
account owner sends out spam, ddos attacks etc.

That right, besides the right to block objectionable traffic (47USC230), is
already there, and should not be overridden (which includes related activity
such as automated logging and monitoring of traffic in order to detect and
mitigate spam / malware emission).

	srs


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:39 AM
> 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
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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