[governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a

[Michael Gurstein]

I must repeat my concern though which is who is invited to the table to
participate in these discussions largely determines the outcome of the
discussions... Stakeholders pursue their "stakes"... So if CS or community
technology activists are not at the table their interests and concerns
aren't going to be taken into account as the research/policy/infrastructure
plays out...as is notably evident in the Bled Declaration (and as can be
read between the lines of Wolfgang's report...

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: May 16, 2008 8:48 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
Subject: RE: [governance] The Bled Declaration - a new internet, or a


I agree there is potential for 'clean slate Internet' research to lead to
conflicting national and regional standards efforts - it is safe to assume
this will occur in future as in past.
 
But having served as a reviewer for some of this, I can say mostly we are
talking about very long-term academic research, more or less
interdisciplinary, which may lead to a practical outcome.  

Too soon for alarm for the IG community, but yeah folks should pay attention
to where the net may - or may not - go next.

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> mueller at syr.edu 05/16/08 11:34 AM >>>

Thanks for this valuable report, Wolfgang. 
As other scholars can attest, there is a long history of regional standards
competition in telecommunications and media -- US v. Europe v. Japan --
involving such things as color TV, High Definition/digital TV, and mobile
telecoms (GSM vs. CDMA). The Internet was in a sense lucky to overcome this
fragmentation, but it did so by global dominance of a single nonproprietary
standard originated in the US. Current competitive efforts to come up with a
"new" "clean slate" Internet are more likely to revert to the pattern of
competing regional standards, in my opinion. Quite apart from the control
issues. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All
Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> I was in this conference (as a member of an EU FP 7 project). 
> This was an official EU meeting which took place under the 
> Slovenian Presidency and united a large number of Internet 
> research projects financed by the FP 7 programme of the EU. 
> This was not an academic but more a political conference. It 
> was more presentation. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php. 
> First day from political leaders and other non-European 
> projects, including FIND, GENI and AKARI. Second and third 
> day presentations by individual members of the FP 7 projects. 
> There was no real discussion. But what I observed was a deep 
> a split. Some groups are enthusiastic about "clean slate" 
> (mainly supported by the telcos) , other are more than 
> sceptical. The whole conference was dominated by engineers. 
> The so-called "socio-economoc dimension" was not included 
> into the agenda on a prominent place. My impression was that 
> the EU Commission wanted to position itself as a "big player" 
> in NGN discussion between the US (FIND, GENI) and JP (AKARI 
> etc.) projects. Also the idea of the proposed "European 
> Future Internet Assembly" is rather vague. I proposed to link 
> this to the proposed "European Internet Governance Forum" (by 
> the European Parliament), but EU Commission officials said 
> this are two different things. However, I discovered in the 
> final "Bled Declaration" that the IGF is now mentioned. 
> Hopefuklly this can be seen as an invitation for a 
> cross-disciplinary dialogue. The text of the "Bled 
> Declaration" was not discussed or negotiated in Bled. It was 
> just prepared by the Commission.  Robert is right that the 
> document gives the impression of "re-invention of the 
> Internet". BTW this was also the case during the recent ITU 
> Caleidescope conference in Geneva, May 12 - 13, 2008. 
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/uni/kaleidoscope/programme.html 
> There timeline is 2020. And again, these groups are not 
> linked to the IG folks grouped around ICANN, IETF, IPv6 and iDNs. 
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang ____________________________________________________________
> 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