[WSIS CS-Plenary] Quick notes from Geneva

[Milton Mueller]

>>> karenb at gn.apc.org 09/22/04 05:51AM >>>
>If the WGIG does indeed take on a broader working definition of
internet 
>governance, it would be very interesting and important for civil
society 
>groups to articulate which existing governance mechanisms are 'not
working 
>effectively' and why. 

The approach we (the Internet Gov. Project") took to that was to
highlight "regime conflicts" mostly involving linkages or conflicts
(diplomats
prefer the term "linkages") between IPR, free speech and privacy,
and between security/surveillance and privacy. 

>on the comment from the former ambassador from Jamaica re no 
>comment on inter-connection prices, i thought olivier (africa caucus)

>did raise this?, and it is certainly in the APC paper and a great 
>concern to our members - he was very right in raising it..

You are referring to the comments of Tony Hill of the South Center.
Our matrix noted this issue, including ITU recommendation D.50.
However,
two important observations can be made about it. First, Recommendation

D.50 is vague and meaningless, because as a consensus body ITU could
not say much and get general agreement, and also because ITU really
has no leverage over ISP interconnection arrangements. Second, 
the issue of interconnection costs has declined greatly in
significance
as bandwidth costs have declined. I have a doctoral student writing 
her thesis about this (she is Thai) and she finds that in Asia at least
the 
impetus for reforming ISP interconnection arrangements deteriorated as

bandwidth costs fell rapidly and more intra-regional interconnection
took
place. In this case, competition and declining costs accomplished more
than
any big change in governance arrangements could have - although there 
is still a long ways to go in other regions, notably Africa.

--MM