[WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Thinking about

[Vittorio Bertola]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:59:15 -0300 (GMT+3), "Enrique A. Chaparro"
<echaparro at uolsinectis.com.ar> wrote:

>> In your opinion, is regulation of such a service part of "Internet
>> governance", or not?
>As you know, the current hierarchical structure of the DNS system
>has no good technical justification. Alternative services are not
>only possible, but also desirable.

Are you talking about alternative sets of root servers?

>Relying on Verisign's quasi-
>monopoly led to that uncomfortable situation. Therefore, the
>Sitefinder's affair become a governance issue, because of the lack
>of circumvention possibilites. So, WGIG should discuss how to
>reach a condition where non-standards-complying parties can be
>circumvented without affecting newtorks' operability.

That's not always possible in practice. For example, even if you had many
different root server systems (something which is already true right now, in
fact), most people would not actually bother to alter whichever default root
server set comes preinstalled in their DNS server software. So, by just
relying on this sort of "non-economical market self-regulation", you would
in fact legitimize the quasi-monopoly you wanted to abolish, by giving them
an alibi such as "if you really want, you can still change root servers; if
no one does, then everybody is happy with us".

It would not be too different from the situation we have here in Italy about
TV channels :-)

>> I don't think you can part some of these aspects from the others, and
>> discuss them separately in different places. I have been spending years
>> on this subject now, and I am more and more convinced that it's almost
>> impossible. And by multiplying the forums you make it more difficult for
>> the less organized and financed actors - that is, us - to coherently
>> lobby for a global result.
>
>On the other hand... are we ready and strong enough to fight
>a battle where the winner takes all? If we concentrate all the
>issues in one forum (assuming that it's feasible), and we
>lose, we won't have second chances...

That's true. But it's a matter of political strategy - you should try to
fight the battles you may win on the fields where you can win them, and
refuse the others. And what you say could be reversed - if *you* win, then
*they* won't have second chances.

So I am not afraid of fighting, but with care and caution, of course.

>> > In that
>> > sense, standards including patented technologies prevent the
>> > required `smoothness', but copyright and trademark issues are
>> > completely out of scope (and should be dealt with elsewhere).
>> 
>> Where? At WIPO? :-/
>
>Why not? ;)

Because changing the culture of an organization - I saw this at companies,
but an international institution is not different - is very hard and takes a
lot of time. It took years of fighting to achieve even small cultural
changes at ICANN, which is a 20-people organization with a few years of age;
can you imagine how hard it is to change the mentality of the staff of
organizations which have been working in a certain way, and building
relationships with certain stakeholders and not with others, for 20 or 50
years?

Said this, I am not particularly expert of WIPO matters, so I am ready to
trust whoever has experience of working there, to understand whether it
would be easier to change the way WIPO works and win the fight there, or try
to move the fight and win it elsewhere. In fact, among us we have a huge
capital in terms of the experience necessary to work out good strategies -
we only have to cooperate to exploit it well.

>After WTO's Doha round, number of countries from the South have
>become aware of the problems posed by TRIPS, and are starting to
>ask for a deep reform of the whole patents and copyrights stuff.

This is good, but as you know, with all due respect, it seems unlikely to me
that the pressure of Southern countries alone can have significant effects
on the way copyright works in the countries where (today, and hopefully not
forever) most ICT tools are developed. Can the government of an African
country really prevent Microsoft from working the way they do? (And we're
getting back to the usual problem of sovereignty erosion...)

>> I see the WGIG as a huge chance to quietly start a new governance model
>> on information society matters, starting from a tiny bit and then moving
>> up towards places where we never had a say, such as WIPO or WTO. I think
>> that, if the final composition of the WGIG is actually satisfactory and
>> balanced, and if we are smart enough to exploit this opportunity, we
>> have plenty to earn from this adventure.
>
>I would like to share your optimism, but I see too many ``ifs''.

Heh... you can't know future in advance, but if you start thinking you'll
lose, then you'll certainly lose :-)

>I strongly believe that the less governance the better. So, if
>WTO wants to impose a new form of bloodsucking on the Internet,
>the best reply from the governance bodies won't be `we do not
>want to do this' (since WTO has enough power to change the
>composition of the reluctant governance body), but `we cannot
>do this; it's contrary to the laws of physics'

This might be applicable at the personal level, for example with actions of
disobedience, or by spreading software that overcomes central limitations
and controls (see DeCSS etc.). But don't forget that, in the end,
governments can send you the police, and media can turn fights for digital
freedoms into cyberterrorism and piracy, so there's a limit to what you can
obtain by refusing to fight at the governance/government level. In a
globally interconnected world, you cannot flee and you cannot hide - so you
have to stand up for your rights well before you are pushed into a corner.

>However, I'm quite sure that me and you have much more agreements
>than disagreements, because even disagreeing in the methods we 
>strive for the same goals. So let's continue this productive dialog.

Sure. Actually, I hope that many other people intervene. This kind of debate
is very important, much more than nomination races.
Thanks,
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...