[governance] E-G8, organising for multiple forums

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Fri Jun 3 15:27:36 EDT 2011 

This has been a very interesting article. I have copied two colleagues into
the discussions.

As we continuously think, muse and debate about how internet should be
regulated, is it really a separate state on its own? No stakeholder within
the cyber environment should ever be marginalised in the discussions. I can
understand why the G8 brought governments and the private sector together,
because they are both the obvious stakeholders within the cyber environment.
The fact that they are marginalising others who are part of the eco system
is a possible indicator of a few possibilities:


   1. There is a general lack of understanding at Governmental levels of the
   cyber environment and who the stakeholders are (this hypothesis can be
   tested); There can volumes of research and information on various subjects
   but if there is no mechanism to connect the dots, then we have a bottle neck
   within the policy advisory roles and it affects and shapes how governments
   respond on issues;
   2. Governments do not care for other stakeholder;

Whilst we should never "assume" to know what the actual position is, we can
endeavour to assess behavioural patterns. If we examine it closely, we will
begin to see that there are reasons for the manifestation.

I am thinking of the cyber environment and the internet eco system. I am
thinking of issues involving critical information infrastructure protection
and governments' stance on cyber attacks as  direct attacks against national
sovereignty around the world.

In a sense there are various threats of attacks that is from national,
private sector, civil society etc. Governments no doubt have a duty to
protect its people from threats against National Security. The issues are
how far do you limit this hold. An examination of jurisdictions around the
world of how governments treat the matter show that they will regulate
according to matters important to them and the philosophies that justify the
regulations. Common threads are:-

   1. Cyber Security;
   2. Child Online Protection (most countries have ratified the United
   Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child or Optional Protocols and
   other Children related protocols);

One of the key factors that help decide the level of prioritisation given to
an issue which is true for commercial entities and also true for governments
are "direct costs" and "indirect costs". Depending on what a person's skill
set or how he or she has been socialised, and this is also true for
governments and the type of philosophy they subscribe to it will impact on
how they interpret the indicators for direct costs and indirect costs.

For some it could be purely tangibly money, such as cost of cyber security
threats to an economy or the cost of dealing with Spam (% of the IT Budget
etc). For others, it could be the cost of creating social unrest and this is
why governments in certain parts of the world feel an obligation to monitor.
(I am not condonining it nor disagreeing with it - I am highlighting the
"invisible social constructs" that causes someone (individuals, communities,
governments) to do what they do.

If we are to, in the spirit of multistakeholder, engage everyone in
dialogue, then it is critical that we examine and discuss on what the "push"
and "pull" factors are and come to appreciate why and how people see because
if together we are to work towards finding solutions that are win-win for
all, then there has to be a high degree of both IQ and EQ. The cyber
environment is bigger than any one entity, it requires a level of
cooperation from all stakeholders to achieve at least some for form of
"Minimum standard", whatever that is for the IG community.




On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Janna Anderson <andersj at elon.edu> wrote:

> 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 citizens‹good 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
>
>


-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110604/f8d921e6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list