More food for thought on the WHOIS context. Norbert = -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] identity - an IG-related issue that crosses boundaries Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:38:44 -0800 From: Garth Graham <[log in to unmask]> To: governance <[log in to unmask]> References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> Ralf Bendrath wrote (his full posting is included at the end): >> There is a great deal of work currently being done on >> "Privacy and Identity Management" (PIM) infrastructures, but largely >> without public participation... ... and yet political support of "user-centric identity" is likely to be of critical importance. So how to make that "work" open to public participation is a very good question. When (or maybe where?) will those whose identity is grounded in "internet Culture" start to speak more directly to the positive qualities of an Information Society that they know from experience to improve daily life? And how will those whose identity is not grounded in Internet Culture hear what they say? The necessary conversations are going to be about accepting where we are going, not defending where we have been. The necessary public conversations are also going to be about values, more than they are about technologies. The "protocol" in Internet Protocol can usefully be thought of as encoding a particular kind of social contract. As the code that expresses the Internet's functions evolves, it is important that its design assumptions continue to take the implications of that contract into account. The informing that occurs will only be "authentic" to the degree that the encoding of identity ensures the teller of my story is myself. It seems to me that individual autonomy (self determination), rather than anonymity or privacy, is the key driving factor governing social relationship in an Information society. Having lived and worked more in small towns (the "community level") than in urban areas, I am well aware that privacy is an illusion, and that gossip is really the primary vehicle of control in closed social networks. I don't refer to small towns in the sense of a paradise lost. It's just an explanation of the things that I see and the way that I see them. In the urbanized world we are all busy creating, the easiest primary vehicle of social control is likely be fear. By defining the way in which relation occurs as "open," the Internet opposes rule by fear. It does this, in large part, by supporting the way in which networks re-define the determinants of identity. I suspect that the expectation of privacy as a right is a holdover from the Industrial Age. It served as a means of socialization to isolate or atomize individuals, thus rendered them more easily aggregated or mobilized as indistinguishable units of production. We can be educated to accept the fairness of a social contract that appropriates our public selves for the public good while, at the same time, leaving our private selves to their own devises. In an Information Society, the social structures are inherently relational (and the Internet Protocol mirrors that capacity to connect), and not involved in the separation of individuals as parts. In order to sustain the self-organization of networks, the Internet enhances the autonomy of the individual to relate to other individuals without reference to authority or to structures that purport to legitimize or "represent" their choices. The growth and evolution of Internet use continues because more people like the autonomy it gives them than do not. If we began asking our national governments what they are doing to defend Internet Protocol from the attacks of telecommunications corporations,what would they say? WSIS itself proves governments are now alert to, and threatened by, the changes in patterns of governance that are made real by relational networks based on peer-to- peer, end-to-end and edge-to-edge. It seems likely to me that nation states will be slow to advocate strongly for what is after all a phase change in the nature of control that has radical consequences for current assumptions about the nature of governance. It therefore seems to me that the forums appropriate for participation in dialogue about the implications and benefits of this change are neither international, nor national, nor even "multi- stakeholder" (in the sense of outsourcing the public good to "non- governmental" agencies). If an Information society is a network of networks, and a nation within it is a network of networks, then the appropriate forums are going to be local. It is becoming clear that the necessary defense of Internet Protocol is the responsibility of local governments. I have begun asking local governments what they are doing to defend Internet Protocol and, to my surprise, I am finding some that understand the question. Public policy needs to focus much more than it does on the implications of living in a political economy of networks. Rather than get hung up on dichotomies of urban versus rural, or centralized versus decentralized, public policy could then sustain communities of practice that are free to distribute functions through self- organization, and to scale according to the situations and settings they experience. Left alone to be "governed" by their own choices, local networked economies can and will develop effectively. And the non-zero sum of their efforts will cause a "nation as a network of networks" to emerge, transformed in a way that works better than it does now. It's a question of who gets to tell my story. I would trust that the structures of an Information society were fair if it was clear in right, and in law and in code that I was the owner of all of the forms for the digital expression of myself. As the Internet evolves, the concept of identity online is also evolving and existing identity systems are faltering. Support is needed both for new systems of digital identity that center identity around the user and for open public participation in their design and application. Yes, my best guess is that the most effective dialogues on the Internet Protocol's implications for identity will be local. But I can't think of a way to avoid a "world" level discussion that wouldn't create more problems than it solves. Therefore, and acting in sympathy with Milton Mueller's and Bertrand de La Chapelle's framework for proposing themes, I have also prepared a submission to the governance list under the subject heading, "Proposed theme: user centric digital identity." Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada On 11-Mar-06, at 3:58 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Garth Graham wrote: > >> Hardt is making a prediction that simple and open "user centric" >> identity is inevitable. If anything is close to the heart of IG >> in the >> sense that I meant, it's the issue of how participation in an online >> world changes our personal need to control the expression of >> identity. >> If Hardt is right (and I hope he is), then beyond IG Forum/ Caucus >> process issues, identity is an issue where civil society voices from >> within the Information Society must play a strong advocacy role. > Very good point, and one that we largely missed to discuss during > the WSIS > phase (Bertrand made one brief attempt last year, but then > everybody was > too busy). > > The issue of identity (and of online identity management) is strongly > related to privacy, in the sense that the netizens (or citizens - > whatever) have to be able to control what kind of information they > give to > whom, and how that is used afterwards. It also is related to > pseudonymity > and anonymity, and a strong fear among privacy advocates is that > all these > infrastructures (the Internet, ambient intelligence systems, RFID > passports, ...) will make is less easy of even impossible to do things > anonymously. There is a great deal of work currently being done on > "Privacy and Identity Management" (PIM) infrastructures, but largely > without public participation... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [log in to unmask] https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance