[governance] E-G8, organising for multiple forums

Fri Jun 3 13:54:05 EDT 2011

To the Internet Governance Caucus list: This article of interest about the
e-G8 is from Jeff Jarvis. I am copying this to Jeff - Jeff, you should
become involved in IGC and the processes of the Internet Governance Forum,
where we're trying to accomplish that of which you speak.
IGC link: http://www.igcaucus.org/
Link to some details from last global IGF:
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_2010/default.xhtml

Jeff's piece on the e-G8
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2011/06/03/e-g8-a-discussion-about-sovereignty/

e-G8: A discussion about sovereignty

I¹m coming to see last week¹s e-G8 meeting in Paris as a negotiation over
the sovereignty and future not only of the net but of government itself.

The e-G8 was government¹s opening volley against the internet as its agent
of disruption. Oh, yes, the gathering was positioned as exactly the
opposite: We come in peace, said Nicolas Sarkozy. After hearing him speak to
the thousand net, corporate, technology, and government machers he¹d
assembled in Tuileries tents, I tweeted that I felt like a native of the
Americas or Africa watching colonists¹ ships sail in, thinking, this can¹t
end well.

I rewatched Sarkozy¹s welcoming address and heard him alternately begging to
be invited to the cool kids¹ partyand warning them of trouble if he isn¹t.
³As long as the internet is part and parcel of the daily lives of our
citizens, it would be a contradiction to leave government out of this
massive discussion,² he said.

Then he asserted: ³No one should forget that governments in our democracies
are the only legitimate representatives of their citizens.² Really, Mr.
President? Tell that to the people of Tahrir Square. The citizens of Egypt
found their true voice apart from the government of their so-called
democracy. Spring is not only overtaking the Middle East. In Spain, too,
citizens are speaking for themselves, because they can. Where else will it
spread?

This was actually a discussion about sovereignty: governments¹ and the
net¹s. ³We want to tell you that the universe that you represent is not a
parallel universe that is free from the rules of law, or the ethics or any
of the fundamental principles that must govern the social lives our
democratic states,² Sarkozy told the tent. But is he right? Sarkozy acted as
if he were planting his flag in the soil of this new land. A few minutes
later (see transcript below) I called the net the eighth continent, an image
I heard from Peter Levin, CTO of the Department of Veterans Affairs  and a
phrase the President liked.

The eighth continent metaphor is confusing, though, since everyone is a
citizen of some land but now anyone can also be a citizen of the net. It¹s
not as if we¹re all taking off for Plymouth Rock, leaving our native lands
behind. We do still live each in our own nation under its laws  you¹re
right about that, Mr. President. Abusing children or stealing money is a
crime everywhere, no matter whether it occurs online.

But many of us  net people  have a new loyalty that inevitably undercuts
old, national authority. Before I¹m accused of being a net exceptionalist,
let me quickly say that the net is hardly the only factor in this modern
disruption of authority. Globalization may be the more powerful force: The
interconnected economy is still unravelling like a cheap sweater; terrorism
works precisely because it has no nation; environmental issues cut across
borders as easily as pollution and radioactivity do; culture seeps across
cultures. The net is simply an agent and accelerant of this change.

But then again, the net is also a new society. That idea is confounding to
nations of laws because the net¹s own sovereignty depends upon no one having
sovereignty over it. That is how it was designed. That is its core
principle. So it doesn¹t behave like a new land that, in Sarkozy¹s view,
needs civilizing. That is why net people acted like antigens at the e-G8,
rejecting its authority here. John Perry Barlow said he came to Paris to
stop Sarkozy from civilizing the net. Susan Crawford said we were there to
make it clear that he did not hold consensus. Lawrence Lessig said that the
real net people were not there. So Sarkozy thought he was negotiating a
treaty with the net but he couldn¹t, because he hadn¹t invited the net.

If Sarkozy can be credited with foresight it is with the vision that trouble
lies ahead for governments and their control. Just as music, news, media,
retail, travel, soon the academe, and so much more have been disrupted by
the net and the next waves of modernization, so will government. He is
trying to reserve himself a spot in that future.

Sarkozy like many others  I include myself  tie ourselves in knots when we
try to define the new world in the terms of the old. He is trying to put the
net under some new form of international governance among those he anoints
as the good guys, our benevolent new overloads. When I call it the eighth
continent, I treat it as a new land to be conquered. Let me try another way.

I believe the net could at last realize the vision of Jürgen Habermas for
the creation of a public sphere to act as a counterweight to the power and
authority of government. Habermas believes that in a brief shining moment,
we had that counterweight in the rational, critical debate that occurred in
the coffee houses and salons of England and Europe in the 18th century.

Whether that moment really occurred is up for considerable debate.
Nonetheless Habermas helpfully sets the terms of the discussion; he defines
an ideal. He also argues that as soon as the public sphere formed, it was
corrupted by mass media as an agent of power. In Public Parts I also quote
Jay Rosen on James Carey saying that the press¹ proper role in a democracy
is not to speak to the public  to inform the public  but to be informed by
the public.

Now, with the net, we have the opportunity at last to right both these
wrongs: to become the counterweight to government and media. So the net is
not a subset of lands we now know. It is not a a new land. It is the public
sphere. Or it can be.

It is up to us to protect it from conquest by government and media. It is up
to us to learn how to use it  like the people of Tahrir Square  to find
our true voice.

The only way that can happen is if the net remains independent and free of
those it would help check or disrupt  in short, all the people Sarkozy
called to the Tuileries tents. That is why I asked them to take the
Hippocratic oath of the net, to first, do no harm.

* * *
Here is the transcript of the simultaneous translation of my encounter with
Sarkozy. He begins by mocking the question; that is evident in his tone. But
note that by the end he starts to understand what I¹m asking. He at least
acknowledges the fragility of what is being created. Oh, he still went to
the G8 to stick his flag in it; that, for him, is a matter of
self-preservation. But at the e-G8, thanks to the likes of Lessig, Crawford,
Jérémie Zimmermann, Yochai Benkler, I began to learn the terms of this
debate, this struggle over nothing less than the platform for the public
sphere.

Q: Monsieur le President, je m¹appelle Jeff Jarvis of the City University of
New York. You acknowledge that government does not own the internet. Yet we
see governments trying to claim sovereignty there. A U.S. official calls the
internet an eighth continent; it is a new land. What makes it free and open
is its very structure of being distributed and open. So as you go to the G8,
I have one small request. I think this discussion is wonderful. I think this
discussion about principles and the internet and shared understanding is
what we need. But I want to ask of government to take a Hippocratic oath for
the internet and that is: First, do no harm.

A: Well honestly it¹s not difficult to answer that question. Do no harm.
Absolutely. I mean why should you think we would harm you? You¹ve got
tremendous potential for growth and knowledge. It¹s extraordinary. I like
the expression the eighth continent.

But what do you mean by harm? I will certainly pay very close attention to
this. Now do you mean that bringing up the matter of security from terrorism
is a question of harm. Is that harmful. Or if we say you are creative people
and what you created has to be protected, respected and we have to also
respect and protect other creative people. Is that harmful to you? If we
said you wanted an eight continent to be the continent of freedom and
openness and we say that we mustn¹t give rise to new monopolies, is that
harmful? We can say there are sacred, universal values such as protecting a
child from the predatory nature of some adults. Is that harmful to you? I do
not think so.

I think what would be harmful to you would be not to recognize that you are
responsible, competent people, good citizensgood global citizens
shouldering their responsibilities. What would be harmful to you would be to
not even bring up the issue, being afraid you would not understand it. You
know the future so well you are certainly capable of understanding this
matter.

So if I am to do a Hippocratic oath of doing no harm, yes, I will take that
oath. I will even say that I like you. I¹d rather the sun shine than the
rain fall; I¹d rather businesses making money than losing money. It¹s great
being here. But ask for stronger commitments on my part.

I can say to you and I¹m convinced that for my colleagues as the heads of
state of government the same holds true: We¹re fully aware of the power of
the internet and at the same time the fragility of the overall internet
ecosystem. We mustn¹t enact any measures that would complicate the
development of this system. I agree with you fully, yes indeed. And I think
with the best intentions we could make for problems if we¹re not careful. So
in this market you¹re creating which hasn¹t yet stabilized we have to be
very careful before making a decision. The idea of regulating once and for
all is ill-suited to your economy. We have to very pragmatic moving forward:
evolve, use our experience, learn from it.

We must decide to do nothing than rather than do the wrong thing. Better to
hold back in a sector of growth and instability. So that¹s my oath that I
would certainly adhere to.

Let me say that for so many of you to come is a good sign. Because if you
felt it weren¹t meaningful you wouldn¹t have come. I really do believe it is
extremely important for us to continue this dialogue in mutual respect.

Believe me, what we want as heads of state in government is to make no
mistake in your area, your economy, which is a work in progress, which is
very fragile, which is very powerful at the same time. We do not want to
create any instability.

-- 
Janna Quitney Anderson
Director of Imagining the Internet
www.imaginingtheinternet.org

Associate Professor of Communications
Director of Internet Projects
School of Communications
Elon University
andersj at elon.edu
(336) 278-5733 (o)

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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