[governance] a good read

Fri Sep 24 17:03:29 EDT 2010

Hmmm, Jeanette interesting thoughts....in relation to information
governance, why I think   internet governance is a more endearing term
is that (aside from my past comments on the subject) the term internet
covers:-

1)Backhaul (global submarine cable networks, fiber networks, radio
waves, satellite technology via which information is carried including
how this is governed in the various jurisdictions (regulatory
capacity, Competition authority determinations that make internet
accessible or not, degree of market liberalisation, nature of
competition etc;

2)ICT prioritisation within the national agenda (whether states have a
governance framework in terms of coherent ICT plans that address
universal service, access, harmonisation of national policies,
regional policies eg. antidumping laws, product liability, issues of
standardisation whether product related or quality of service issues;

3)Treatment of content, issues of privacy and security are all
determined by the type of government, its form and preferred
philosophical base etc...

These are all indicators to me of why the Term Internet Governance
should remain, what will address the debate behind...advocates who
argue that the term "IG" should change would be to have the issues,
crystallised and placed in systematic threads...when I hear the term
Information Governance, i think of point 3 in my email.

We all have different paradigms and they are determined by our areas
of expertise, but it is critical when discussing issues of massive
philosophical implications that we address the issue holistically.

Warm Regards from Auckland,

Sala

On 9/25/10, William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Two more cents:  The circa 2004 language of "broad" vs "narrow" definitions
> of IG is misleading and will hopefully fade away at some point.  On the one
> hand, there is nothing remotely narrow about the range of issues and
> institutions that are supposedly entailed by the "narrow" definition.  On
> the other hand, the way the distinction gets used, to the extent that it
> still does, seems to imply that what's under the narrow umbrella is the
> important real deal IG, while what's under the broad umbrella is some sort
> of murky hodgepodge of miscellaneous stuff that may or may not be important
> and IG.  This is especially so if one conceives of what's under the "broad"
> umbrella as "the relationship between the Internet and mainstream public
> policy issues that are affected by it," which can mean just about anything
> (is the conduct of electoral campaigns Internet governance?  this is
> certainly a mainstream public policy issue affected by the Internet…).  If
> one thinks that "broad IG" refers to everything and hence nothing, then it's
> easy to agree we shouldn't use the term anymore.  The problem is, there are
> in fact consequential shared rule systems pertaining to intellectual
> property, digital trade, global e-commerce, "information
> security"/cybercrime, cross-border information flow, privacy and so on, and
> it was with these kinds of governance systems in mind that people argued for
> a definition that was broader than just names and numbers.
>
> The understanding of what is IG is one of the arenas in which actual
> progress can be noted due to WSIS, IGF, etc.   It'd be a pity if we were to
> revert to the confusion of the period prior.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>> To address more specifically (as opposed to my previous posts in this
>> thread) the suggestion of Internet public policy vs Internet governance,
>> I'd generally agree with the objections raised so far: there are many more
>> moving parts to governance than you'd have with public policy in general,
>> and more particularly when it comes to Internet. Also, I concur that the
>> development and implementation of public policy is just a specific form of
>> governance among others. In reality, the mere fact that 'governance' by
>> definition is readily open to a multistakeholder exercise, which is not
>> necessarily the case for public policy making, should be enough to put the
>> IISD's suggestion to rest. But allow me address some of the previous
>> arguments.
>>
>> First, there certainly is something out there that deserves the name of
>> IG. Second, ICANN, IETF, W3C, IETF, etc. do not trade or are not designed
>> to trade in public policy regarding the Internet. So if the label IG is
>> not satisfying talking about the activities conducted by those bodies and
>> their significance to the Internet globally, IPP is certainly not better
>> in that role.
>>
>> Second, IGF is another beast ...still evolving, maybe. At face value, the
>> thing itself is a global agora, an open forum to whomever it may concern
>> to participate in (and yes, dialogue and debates are the sort of things
>> that happen in that kind of places) etc. I'll let others try a
>> comprehensive definition of its content (what is talked about, which may
>> not exactly coincide with what is effected) but it seems to me it will
>> have to include IG as well as IPP issues, even though the Forum does not
>> make such policy.
>>
>> Now, if we're looking for an alternative name for IG as subject area, I'm
>> not sure 'Information governance' is the most fitting. Key words are:
>> network, information and communication. I understand 'information' may be
>> the most ubiquitous of the three in terms of use for defining our era (eg,
>> information revolution, society, etc.) But I wonder if 'Network
>> governance' would not be a better choice, Network being a shorthand for
>> (global) 'information and communication networks' as it is the new network
>> diagram and architecture that has made the whole thing revolutionary, not
>> information per se that has been with us forever. Noting that IT
>> governance has already been captured by the corporate world (besides, the
>> T might sound too exclusive), other options may include: 'IP governance'
>> (IP in generic sense) and 'Internet in global governance'. But then again,
>> in view of these results, 'global internet governance' was not such a bad
>> candidate after all!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> while I understand the uneasiness of assembling a broadening field of
>> policy action under an unchanging term, I don't follow IISD's solution. In
>> my view, public policy is just one specific form of governance, not an
>> alternative. What might change in the long run is the other component of
>> the term. Internet may appear to be too narrow to cover all the aspects
>> addressed in this field. Some people now refer to information governance
>> as a broader concept.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>> On 22.09.2010 20:59, McTim wrote:
>> FYI:
>>
>> http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/icts_internet_sd_new_paradigm.pdf
>>
>> For those getting tired of the term "Internet Governance" (like me)
>> please see bottom of page 6:
>>
>> "The term “Internet governance” has been widely used since the World
>> Summit on the Information Society to describe not just the technical
>> management and coordination of the Internet itself (which is sometimes
>> called “narrow Internet governance”), but also the
>> relationship between the Internet and mainstream public policy issues
>> that are affected by it (sometimes called “broad Internet
>> governance”). Both of these types of issues are discussed,
>> for example, in the Internet Governance Forum.
>> IISD believes that the use of the term “Internet governance” for this
>> wide range of issues is increasingly inappropriate, particularly where
>> issues fall primarily in other public policy arenas. IISD therefore
>> prefers to use the term “Internet public policy” for this wider range
>> of issues"
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands

Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj

"Wisdom is far better than riches."
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t