Allow me to suggest an addition: 5. Access to number space in a manner that fosters non-commercial access and is competitively neutral. Harold Feld At 11:38 AM 9/5/2004, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]> 9/5/2004 12:23:56 AM >>> > >Can we identify five to seven leading issues and recommendations > >that we think are the most pressing with regard to IG? These can > >be either individual issue-areas (e.g. management of identifiers is > >obviously one of them) or cross-cutting meta-level problems. > >Our forthcoming report will clarify many of these issues. >We (the Internet Governance Project) will be able to release >it in a few days. At the moment we are still subject to a >vetting process. Unfortunately, some of the actors are playing >games, either strategically refusing to comment or commenting >privately but telling us that they are officially "not commenting" >(but still giving us some valuable insight into what they think). > >Nevertheless, I can identify several areas that I think will >prove to be strategic: > >1. Relationship of Intellectual Property Protection to >Free Expression and Privacy. >I believe that certain international organizations and >perhaps some business interests will attempt to claim >that IPR is off the table, and that it has nothing to do >with Internet governance. Nothing could be further >from the truth. The Internet has forced a complete >revision of global copyright and trademark agreements >In a variety of venues, including >WIPO and ICANN, we see IPR protection issues >coming into direct contact with free expression and >privacy norms and even some scientific inquiry norms. >These issues should not be worked out exclusively >in arenas such as WIPO, which are historically mandated >to serve IPR interests and see IP owners as their >constituency. > >2. ICANN's status as a non-state actor. >This is a tricky one. ICANN is under attack on three fronts, >1) its basis in US Govt/law 2) its non-governmental nature >3) the degree to which it does "policy" as opposed to >"technical management" (which may be just an extension of >issue 2). There is no doubt that specific governments intend >to make an issue of this, and there is still the possibility that >it will overwhelm everything else. Imho, we need to defend >the multi-stakeholder, non-state governance of the regime >against the possibility that it will become more governmental >and regulatory, while recognizing (critically) that ICANN *does* >do policy and supporting efforts to find a model that >does not rely on US govt contracting. There are some even >deeper issues regarding the use of contracting as a global >governance mechanism, too much to go into here. > >3. Relationship between security/surveillance on the >Internet and civil liberties. >Here again, the narrow, issue-specific regimes focused >on attacking terrorism/crime tend to override other legitimate >concerns. We could promote a broadened dialogue >that forces Internet surveillance and security measures to be >respectful of human rights in a globally uniform way. > >4. Right to internetwork globally >The most fundamental issue is the hardest to convey. >Territorial governments must formally recognize and >explicitly accept the non-territorial nature of IP networking >and the Internet's architecture. No serious agreements about >Internet governance in any given area can be made until that >issue is dealt with. Either the potential of global networking >is accepted as a factual starting point, or governance >gravitates toward chopping it up into territorially-controlled >architectures and resource allocation procedures (thus >destroying much of the value of the Internet). It may be >too much to ask territorial governments to accept the >reality and salience of nonterritorial interconnection, but >that is really the choice they are faced with. > >--MM