[governance] IGF review

Sat May 30 12:01:36 EDT 2009

Colleagues,

As the debate concerning ICANN/JPA has been raging on this list I've been
pondering Ginger's earlier challenge to "focus the debate" and George's
comments concerning the IGF review both quoted below...

I'm also mindful of Parminder's pointing to the positive (and indeed quite
practical) results coming from WIPO without any commensurate return from the
enormous efforts expended by cs in the IGF process.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be drawn from the WIPO outcome where an
agreement is in the process of being developed for dealing with what is in
fact a relatively marginal population but where the broader implications of
the agreement being struck could have significant benefits to a very wide
range of equally marginal (and not so marginal) groups and issue areas.

Where my thoughts take me on this is that at the background to my own
interventions around IG have been experiences with marginal groups and
populations for whom issues of Internet Governance (i.e. being able to
govern the terms and conditions under which they are able to access and
utilize (and manage the infrastructure of) the Internet) have been central.
I'm thinking in this case particularly of very remote groups in Northern
Canada and the Highlands of Borneo for whom Internet access (which in their
case for quite specific local reasons becomes Internet governance) are to a
degree a matter of life and death. I'm thinking further of a group with whom
I have less experience but whose specific circumstances are that because
they are geographically scattered over 3 hostile national Internet
governance regimes are unable to realize the degree of integration around
their TLD and character set which would allow them a measure of cultural,
linguistic and even political leverage of some significant value in their
specific circumstances.

All this is to say (for the umpteenth time), by not including the voices and
concerns of the ultimate end users (and particularly those end users at the
margins), the IG debate including by cs is significantly impoverished.

To be practical here, discussions at the IGF about specific
"political/cultural" issues of governance (and alternative governance models
and approaches) as they impact for example, on groups at the margin might be
both revealing from a theoretical perspective and provide the basis for
moving forward towards some useful practical outputs/directions for cs
policy interventions as well.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:21 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review--how can the IGF help in this process?

This is a very interesting discussion thread--perhaps one of the best I
have read on this list. However, I wonder if it is possible to bring the
focus back to whether or how the IGF process can or should affect this
whole situation. Is this possible? Has the IGF process helped? How could
it? Do we have something concrete to say about the IGF process? Is there
a way to evaluate (or review) the IGF?
Thanks, Ginger

As well as George's comments:

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 9:43 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; 'McTim'
Cc: 'BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE'
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review

Michael,

Thanks for an interesting perspective.

Bill Drake has put forward the notion that we should look at Internet
governance through a strong development lens, as opposed to some of
the other lenses that seem to be used, such as fundamental rights or
power.  I think this would be a major step forward, and it would
benefit more the countries that are Internet-poor.

However, the current forces driving the IGF, partially through the
MAG, are centered upon U.S. control, ICANN, and Internet rights.
Granted that there are issues there, they serve to sidetrack what I
think is a fundamental question:  What are the levers within Internet
governance that would make a real difference to people in
Internet-poor countries by enhancing their economic and social
development, and how can they be used?  the current questions
attracting attention only deal with this question peripherally, if at
all.

Regards,

George
-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:07 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] Obama on security, net neutrality, civil

Also see http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=4072  for how strong public
interest outcomes can be obtained at multi-lateral processes with good civil
society activism and participation.

The new paradigms of public interest exceptions to global regimes that are
being worked out at WIPO are path-breaking work. Since we have been
analyzing civil society's role in global policy arena, I think that these
achievements at WIPO have significant role of CS, which has been made
possible because the progressive directions that CS espouses are relatively
clear and strong in IP arena, which is much more than can be said about IG
arena. This should make CS introspect as we bemoan the issues with power and
apathy of state and market players.

One basic question is - in an arena - meaning IG - where we may appear to
have made much gain in much higher levels of 'formal' participation, has
this process been accompanied by certain structural elements that may have
in fact decreased 'real' participation which leads to better public interest
outcomes.

Quoting from the article on WIPO linked to above.

Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, introduced the proposal into committee, “have
channelled into WIPO a legitimate and urgent demand from the civil
society,” members of the Brazilian delegation told Intellectual Property
Watch afterward.
“For the first time ever, a draft treaty on exceptions and limitations is
brought to the attention of the SCCR,” they said.
The treaty proposal, which originated from the World Blind Union, “was
broadly supported and member countries showed openness and willingness to
discuss” it, the Brazilians added.
“This has been a very important shift of what we would like to call the
‘new paradigm’, which is to give equal importance to the private interests
of rightsholders and the human rights of the public,” Flavio Arosemena,
national copyright director of Ecuador, said afterward. “WIPO has just
taken a first step towards assessing the intellectual property system as a
tool for development, and to contribute to better the lives of all people
not only rights holders.”

Parminder wrote:
Thanks Anriette,  there are very useful  insights in  your report below, and
they present some significant dilemmas. How to best ensure and represent
public interest at global arenas remains  a huge challenge and is  a long
haul. What we in civil society, in my humble opinion, can best do is to
build and strengthen civil society networks and capacities at the global
level. It consists both in anchoring strongly a vision of 'another world is
possible' and, perhaps even more importantly, invest in processes of
openness, collaboration and a very high degree of p2p and bottom-up
accountability in the civil society arena. That is our legitimacy, and that
alone can give us the needed strength to influence these processes better.
Parminder

Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Thanks Adam... Friday was definitely *not* a good day at the CSTD in
Geneva. I don't have the copy of the final resolution yet, but it is not
particularly positive about the IGF, makes no reference to national and
regional IGFs, and proposed text with regard to consideration being
given to reporting on WSIS follow up from non-governmental stakeholders
was not included.

It has fairly good text on the general 'state' of the information
society, but that is about as far as it goes.

Negotiations were difficult and depressing, shaped by the narrow
interest of particular governments and far removed, in my opinion, from
the CSTD mandate which is oversight of WSIS implementation with
consideration of inputs of all stakeholders and the WSIS principles in
genera.

Many of the government representatives tried extremely hard to change
this, to be positive and proactive and open. I respect their hard work.
Without their efforts the final resolution would be even worse.

Anyone who has doubts that the IGF is an important and useful space, or
that feels frustrated by it not 'making decisions' or 'leading to
action' should have been here.

The consensus based decision-making process of intergovernmental forums
such as this one sometimes does more than just reduce outcomes to the
lowest common denominator - it punishes proactivity and discourages
collaboration and openness.

Anriette - in my personal capacity NOT speaking on behalf of APC :)

On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 15:42 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:

Interesting things happening in the US:

President Obama's speech "Securing Our Nation's Cyber
Infrastructure",
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Secu
ring-Our-Nations-Cyber-Infrastructure/>
includes the paragraph:

"Let me also be clear about what we will not do.  Our pursuit of
cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring
private sector networks or Internet traffic.  We will preserve and
protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as
Americans.  Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we
can keep the Internet as it should be -- open and free."

Administration supporting network neutrality, security *and* civil
liberty and privacy.

Next:

ICANN oversight hearing in the Congress, Thursday June 4. "Event:
'Oversight Of The Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers
(ICANN)' "
<http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extm
ode=view&extid=47>

Anyone know the speakers etc?

And interesting, seems Andrew McLaughlin will join the Obama
administration as Deputy Chief Technology Officer, reporting to
Aneesh Chopra
<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/googles-top-policy-exec-to-join-ob
ama-administration/>.
You can see Andrew talking about technology and government in this
video from the Obama transition
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InI5n3NTvR4>.

Think Friday was a good day.

Adam

____________________________________________________________
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