[WSIS CS-Plenary] IPR : Strategic priorities for WGIG

[Enrique A. Chaparro]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:05:55 +0100
Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:

VB> Enrique A. Chaparro ha scritto:
VB> > Let's try to start from the beginning: What is Internet? A network
VB> > carrying (as reliably as possible) IP packets from a source address
VB> > to a destination address. Period. So, Internet governance should be
VB> > limited to the minimal set necessary to guarantee such reliable
VB> > transport.
VB> 
VB> This point of view has already been exposed and discussed in the
VB> various forums (WSIS, UN ICT Task Force etc) in the last couple of
VB> years... its foremost supporters were the developing countries
VB> alliance that really wanted the debate to focus only on ICANN (and,
VB> partly, on how to transfer its functions to ITU), and the private
VB> sector, which feared changes in presently unregulated or favourably
VB> regulated markets (from IPR to interconnection and peering costs). In
VB> the end, this point of view was eventually rejected during the
VB> creation process for the WGIG.

If that is the majority position within the WGIG, I see no point in
trying to explain my viewpoints about the difference between ``Internet
issues'' and ``Internet *governance* issues. By the way, I believe that
ICANN as a governance body is a fiasco and has not lived up to our
 expectations (but those of the corporate world), by not doing what
it was required to do, and by doing what it has not been requested to.

There could be, however, evils worse than ICANN:
- An Internet `governed' by the governments; or
- An Internet `governance structure' managed by multilateral (inter-
  governmental or `public-private' entities) as ITU.

If we fall into any of those two options, we should add inefficiency
to the current evils. And censorship in a non negligible number of
cases, as recent history shows (China, Tunis, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia...).

It could be even worse. The `internet governance structure' could
be a `public-private partnership'. Whatever that recent fashionable
buzzword is intended to mean, in `real life' a PPP implies a transfer
of governmental powers and duties into private hands, without imposing
the requirements of due process, public oversight and accountability
which are fundamental for democratic governments.

It does not matter if a governing body is public, private or
mixed under any form. Its roles must be carefully defined. And strict
constraints must be put in place to avoid that such governing body
(as the ICANN case shows) be `hijacked' by those which the body is
supposed to oversee, or by others finding that body useful to foster
the agenda of private sectorial interests.

Government is power. And power is power wherever it is used,
suffered and resisted. Assuming that the `internet' prefix somehow
moderates or cancels the risks and dangers of such power is pure
delusion. The power to manage the `governable' aspects of the Internet
must be limited, constrained and subject to public enquiry. The Internet
governance must follow the same principles that rule the democratic
states, where precise boundaries are established to avoid any abuse of
governmental powers.

The government must be structured so that power is distributed,
not concentrated; that regulated tensions are built so that diverging
interests control each other. Such structure must guarantee that no
actor can get a power quota broader than what legitimately belongs to
that sector.

Internet governance bodies must be subject to oversight and review.
They must be open to everyone concerned by the issues being managed.
They must be built on the universal community of Internet users. And,
of course, must be responsible and accountable before such community.
To accomplish these goals, there shouldn't be more than one (and just
one) level of representation between that community and the people
entrusted with the governance powers.

 
VB> As you know, Internet standards do not only deal with the transport
VB> layer, but also with the upper layers, up to services and
VB> applications. I don't think there is any reasonable way that you can
VB> consider the Web, e-mail and other services as not being part of the
VB> Internet, and thus, of Internet governance.

At first sight, my slogan "Internet is intended to reliably move IP
packets" may sound as an understatement, and the RFC excerpt I quoted
is perhaps more accurate. In any case, for a more in-deep discussion,
I would appreciate your comments on my statements about ''issues in
need of some form of governance'' as they appear in the third and
fourth paragraphs of my message. However, if both of us agree on a
mail protocol distinct from SMTP, not using already allocated port
and protocol numbers (let's say, BCUMTP, the Bertola-Chaparro
Unreliable Mail Transfer Protocol, using port 54321) we can still
use the Internet without breaking any standards. So, in fact, the
issue seems to require a little more explanation:
- Internet standards are rules, that can be expressed in a declarative
  language.
- Such rules can be expressed as: IF (your_role_in_the_Internet)
  YOU MUST (do_something), e.g., if your host's port 25 is open,
  you must accept and reply an incoming HELO
Sorry for the oversimplification, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Do you think that governance should extend to the BCUMTP? And if
so, why?

OTOH, I'll disagree: mail (or www, or file transfers, or...)
are *not* a matter of Internet governance, except in a very narrow
sense. *SMTP* is, up to the point that for belonging to the Internet
a mail exchange host must know how to handle it. As you know, the
minimal set that keeps the Internet running is made of 66 standards
(and 5 of them are just historic -- see RFC 3700). Many of those
standards belong to layer 7, so you need to abide by them if (and
only if) you are implementing such layer-7 service in your host.

I wonder if this point is the focus of our controversy. Your
statement can be read as ``everything that is in the Internet
requires some kind of formal governance'', while I believe that
the scope of IG must be very limited. The best way to avoid
power abuse is by not having it :)

If my slogan was an understatement, yours is an overstatement.
Your assumption that "services are part of the Internet, thus they
are part of Internet governance", as good as it might sound, admits
a very dangerous reading:
- Pornography is a part of the WWW
- WWW is a part of the Internet
- WWW is a matter of Internet governance
- Pornography is a matter of Internet governance
I'm in no way implying that you advocate such thing (since if you were,
it would be useless to have this discussion), but just trying to show
how dangerous could be that (y)our wishes come true.

Not every aspect of the Internet needs governance. On the contrary,
only _very limited_ aspects, not belonging to specific fields
pf "real world" governance, need it. And even in those, extreme
care is required, because of the legitimacy issues surrounding
governance bodies.

Thus, I'll stand by my words: governance and regulations are only
required when they are necessary for rational and fair allocation
of scarce resources and for management of common infrastructure, but
for *nothing* else.

Regards,

Enrique

-- 
``Izena duen guzia omen da.''
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050130/51dcdb23/attachment.pgp