[discuss] [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect Internet governance?--
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jan 6 08:20:45 UTC 2014
On Monday 06 January 2014 04:22 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Interesting Declaration by the Community Informatics. Could you
> elaborate on the following concepts:
>
> /We aspire to an Internet effectively owned and controlled by the
> communities that use it and to Internet ownership that evolves
> through communities federated regionally, nationally and globally.
> (...) /
>
I think it is a more expressive way of saying that the Internet is to be
treated successively as a local, national and global commons...
> /The access layer and the higher layers of applications and
> content should be community owned and controlled in a way that
> supports a rich ecology of commercial enterprises subject to and
> serving community and public interests./
>
>
> What do you concretely mean?
And that profit making on and off the Internet while a legitimate
activity must be subordinate to Internet's larger social purposes as
decided by various community/ political processes..
parminder
>
> Best
>
> B.
>
>
>
> "/Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes/", Antoine
> de Saint Exupéry
> ("/There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans/")
>
> BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE
> Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director
> email bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net
> <mailto:bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net>
> email bdelachapelle at gmail.com <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
> twitter @IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> |
> @bdelachapelle <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>
> mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> www.internetjurisdiction.net <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net>
>
> A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PROCESS
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 7:36 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> And of course, I could be wrong, but my understanding of the
> task/desired outcome of the Brazil meeting at least as articulated
> by Pres. Rousseff, was a set of high level principles to govern
> (or perhaps better, orient the governance) of the Internet... i.e.
> in what directions should those who are or may be in a position to
> have such impact, as for example through public policy, be
> (attempting to) direct these developments...
>
> So, to go back to my initial point, following on from the Baack
> and Rossini analysis, in what areas could/should there be
> "principles" developed which aren't being currently covered by the
> 20 or so statements of principles that they reviewed in their work?
>
> A few that I pointed out were:
>
> * how should the overall societal benefits being derived from the
> Internet be distributed---so as to increase or decrease social and
> economic inequality?
>
> * what should be the overall direction for the evolution of the
> Internet---towards increasing centralization/concentration or
> towards decentralization and empowerment at the edges;
>
> * should there be interventions so as to reduce the likelihood of
> the evolution of the Internet towards being the underlying
> platform for a global "Surveillance State"
>
> (the first two of which were prominent in either or both WSIS and
> the WGIG I believe, but which evidently have fallen off the agenda
> for an artificially narrowed (and dare I say ingrown) civil society...
>
> The Community Informatics community has adopted a Declaration
> <http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/1099/1065>
> which attempts to address some of these. The 12 points listed
> there may not be perfect but I/we believe they are rather more
> comprehensive and inclusive of the interests of all of those
> impacted by the Internet either directly as users or indirectly
> including those who are not yet or currently users than the, dare
> I say "consensus" principles being artificially promoted here as
> elsewhere, which overall are simply a reflection of an
> increasingly unacceptable status quo.
>
> Best,
>
> M
>
> *From:*discuss-bounces at 1net.org <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Roberts
> *Sent:* Monday, January 06, 2014 12:21 AM
> *To:* discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [discuss] [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect
> Internet governance?--
>
> r
>
> The arrival of each new generation of communications technology
> enables and expands the power of various social, political and
> economic interests. The Internet is just the latest such arrival,
> although the conjunction of the technology of moving bits with
> that of stored logic in computers has raised the bar considerably
> on deus ex machina considerations. Jousting occurs as these
> interests attempt to reshape the landscape to fit their diverse
> visions of a better future.
>
> The Internet itself is amoral. It neither advances nor retards
> human activities except through the actions of its users
> (including those who use the technology to provide services).
> This list seems to be excessively caught up in debate and value
> judgments over what humans are or are not doing with use of
> Internet technology. In the early days of ICANN, we used to
> refer to this as special interest groups attempting to seize the
> ICANN agenda for their own purposes, whatever they might be,
> including those who favor a nihilistic "hands off the Internet"
> agenda.
>
> Given the very limited sphere of potential influence of the Brazil
> meeting on Internet evolution, it might be helpful to focus on a
> pragmatic assessment of what outcomes of the meeting are feasible
> and useful and how the list members might advance them, emphasis
> on feasible and useful.
>
> - Mike
>
> On Jan 5, 2014, at 6:15 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The issue Mike raises goes to the heart of the matter...
>
> If the present phase (post-Snowden?) is about some real change in
> global Internet governance, then it has to be of coming out of
> narrow ideologies that the Internet and Internet governance remain
> stuck in..
>
> After a very good start in the hands of early pioneers of the
> Internet, the original sin of course was committed when the US
> establishment characterised the Internet's primary identity as a
> global marketplace, which identity forms the basic philosophy and
> rules of its current governance ... This over-rode the primary
> role of the Internet in global community building, social
> mediation, access to knowledge, p2p production models, and so on,
> which certainly was a very political act if shrouded rather well
> in 'technical neutrality' and such things.
>
> Next layer of political clothing for the Internet came, a few
> years later, as a narrow set of negative rights - mostly, just
> freedom of expression, no doubt a very important right, but being
> just one out of many, and often rather meaningless without the
> larger set of rights. This struggle of what makes FoE meaningful
> was precisely the struggle that civil society did in the form of
> communication rights movement, but all those advances seem to have
> been simply rolled back, unfortunately even by much of IG related
> civil society.
>
> Interestingly, the needs for an Internet for global extension of
> digital trade, and, through digital networks, other forms of
> trade, seemed to share a lot of points with the conception of an
> Internet for global freedom of expression, and a very strong
> alliance of Internet free trade-ists and free expression-ists got
> built, which has its good points, but very huge limitations as
> well. Snowden spoiled this party a bit, but the alliance seems
> rather resilient.... That is the political reality of the Internet
> that we have right now.
>
> Well, to come back to Mike's point, if we have to make progress,
> we have to come out of these safe and comfortable spaces. There is
> a huge world out there, and the Internet is simply not serving its
> interests in its full potential. In many ways, it can begin to
> make things worse for them, unless the interests of disadvantaged
> people are specifically recognised and articulated in IG spaces,
> and also judged as often being different from those of the
> dominant classes. Such an exercise must be the most important
> thing to do in this current phase of revisiting Internet
> governance. In default, it would just be a lot of window
> dressing, which dominant groups are known to resort to whenever
> strong challenges to their domination emerge. And that would be
> such a waste of everybody's time.
>
> parminder
>
> On Sunday 05 January 2014 02:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> My apologies if this is a bit out of sequence... I'm only now
> getting around to reading the fascinating document that
> Alejandro and George pointed us towards by Baak and Rossini.
>
> And it is excellent and fascinating work. It is quite
> remarkable I think in surfacing the pre-occupations and
> directions that have guided the Internet Governance
> discussions including those on most lists, the IGF and even
> the academic research.
>
> One can only marvel at the strong measure of coherence and
> convergence that the paper demonstrates so clearly and concisely.
>
> But I must say I'm struck in reading that document by (as
> Sherlock Holmes would say) the dogs that aren't barking.
>
> Where in the collection of themes/principles is there any
> reference to (responding to) the distributional impact of the
> Internet---in terms of wealth, power, position, influence; or
> where are there proposed principles that deal with the
> increasing concentration/centralization of power that is such
> a characteristic of the current Internet and away from what
> was a fundamental element in the design of the Internet its
> decentralization, distributed governance and control migrating
> to the edges; or (and of course most of these documents are
> pre-Snowden), where is there any reference that even hints at
> the rise of the Surveillance State and what if anything that
> can/should be done about this.
>
> So perhaps the convergence and coherence rather than something
> to be celebrated should be seen as a problem to be addressed.
>
> Is this perhaps a reflection of a false and narrow, even
> artificial consensus, among those proposing IG principles.
> Moreover is this "consensus" something that can truly provide
> the range of principles that would respond to Pres. Rousseff's
> call to "harness the full potential of the Internet" including
> in ensuring universality, diversity, democracy, development
> and human rights in and through the Internet and its governance.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*i-coordination-bounces at nro.net
> <mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net>
> [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net] *On Behalf Of *George
> Sadowsky
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:25 AM
>
> *To:*Nigel Hickson
> *Cc:* I-coordination at nro.net <mailto:I-coordination at nro.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect
> Internet governance? [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]
>
> It really worth looking at the paper that Alejandro suggested:
>
> in
> http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/2013/10/ChartConceptNote_MB_CR.pdf Jeonghyun
> Baak and Carolina Rossini present a compilation of principles
> (for Internet freedom, mostly). They have also made public
> tables with a detailes, issue-by-issue compilation of
> statements from a very broad set of organizations. Very high
> quality work.
>
> George
>
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Nigel Hickson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Nick; great idea; we have some from OECD; Council of Europe
> and European Commission. A coordinate input to Brazil would be
> great!
>
> *From: *Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org
> <mailto:nashton at ccianet.org>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:45 PM
> *To: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> *Cc: *"I-coordination at nro.net <mailto:I-coordination at nro.net>"
> <i-coordination at nro.net <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net>>
> *Subject: *Re: [I-coordination] New: How do we dissect
> Internet governance? [Was: Europe at a tipping point?]
>
> To Bill's point in the first instance it would be useful to
> identify those principles that exist to date and their source
> and scope. Perhaps 1net could host a wiki environment or the
> like where those with knowledge of one or more could get a
> list together?
>
> On 17 Dec 2013, at 18:34, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi George
>
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, George Sadowsky
> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> You say: "Do we really have nothing more important to be doing
> here at this point than redefining the wheel as just a round
> thingy? I thought this list was supposed to be for
> coordination of multistakeholder dialogue on Sao Paulo and
> beyond, but it seems to alternate between being a troll
> paradise and the site of a lot of meandering debates on points
> that are generally being addressed more systematically
> elsewhere. Or am I alone in this perception?"
>
> I agree that we need to address points systematically. Can
> you provide a list of systematic points (dare we call them
> issues?) that it would, in your view, be useful to discuss?
>
> Well, why not start with the question of principles? The
> initiators of the SP meeting have been saying from the outset
> they'd like to have a sort of multistakeholder declaration of
> principles. Presumably it'd be helpful if 1net participants
> were to provide some input on this, and presumably we'd like
> it to be more than just nice fluffy words. Why not discuss
> the range of options to make this a useful exercise, and see
> where there's cross-stakeholder consensus and where there's
> not? It's something concrete that needs to be done, and they
> want input by 1 March.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140106/8e8f4185/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list