[IRP] layers approach to stratify internet governance

[M.I.Franklin]

Dear All,

No metaphor is perfect. Still, the notion of the term matrix captures quite 
well here the interlocking dimensions that are at stake; symbolically and 
in more practical terms. This gives more depth to the image of governance 
as complex; three-dimensional, and lateral vs. the more architectural, 
top-down/bottom-up image of a building or geological layers one on top of 
another.

As Meryem and others have noted, time is short so a pragmatic approach i.e. 
converging these ideas from both sides by thinking them out in terms of a 
matrix figure, or at least intersecting vectors could be very helpful. It 
also represents how the socio-cultural dimensions to the techno-legal 
components of this picture are integral, rather than add-ons.

All the best with the final drafts.
MF

--On 15 September 2009 20:15 +0200 Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 
wrote:

> Hi Lisa and all,
>
>
> You're right that it's difficult to make a decision in the abstract. Let
> me make a methodological proposal: why not taking the issue from both
> sides, and trying to converge? The idea is to work on a matrix where
> rights and layers are crossed, and the matrix elements would be the
> requirements for a given right to be implemented/enforced/upheld at a
> given layer (if relevant).
>
>
> These requirements could be positive or negative, depending on the right
> and the layer. Moreover, the requirements could be of various sorts:
> legal, economical, technical, behavioral, etc.
>
>
> Regarding layers, Anriette's list is probably worth to consider, i.e.:
>
> "physical layer (e.g. the internet backbone, radio spectrum, computers),
> a protocol or logical layer (e.g. open standards to ensure all sectors of
> the internet "talk" to each other), and content and applications."
> In my opinion, there is probably a "usages" layer to be added.
>
>
> Then, and only then, a charter or whatever kind of document might be
> written.
>
>
> Although this reference is old (2003, but after all UDHR is even
> older:)), you may have a look at page 3 of
> http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris-caucus-input.pdf for
> an example of a translation of the right to education and knowledge into
> different requirements, which can easily fit in different layers.
>
>
> Hope this helps,
> Meryem
>
>
>
> Le 15 sept. 09 ? 16:44, Lisa Horner a ?crit :
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
> I think it would be useful to structure the charter on human rights and
> principles according to different "layers" of the communciations
> environment.  The ones I personally findmost useful are infrastructure,
> code, applications and content.  Structuring rights and principles in
> these layers might help us to identify all of the issues and challenges
> involved, and make sure we catch them all.  (nb we did something like
> this int he freedom of expression project - see
> http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principle
> s+for+the+networked+communications+environment for more).
>
> I think it'd make sense to outline the key UDHR rights in the preamble,
> and then flesh them out as rights and principles in the rest of the doc,
> split into layers.
>
> The point was raised in the meeting on sunday that using the language of
> "commons" might be confusing...it's a fairly complex concept, and is best
> known in terms of the "information commons".
>
> However, there wasn't clear consensus on this in the meeting.  So we
> agreed to try and structure the doc according to human rights rather than
> layers, which makes sense if we're translating human rights to apply in
> the internet environment.  I commented that I thought this would be
> difficult as it would be repetitive,,,,many of the rights apply to
> different issues at different layers.
>
> However, tt's difficult to talk about this in the abstract,  We agreed
> that a good place to start with this might be to look at the rights and
> principles currently contained in the charter and look for gaps, things
> to be taken out and ammendments.  Once we've done that, a clear structure
> might emerge, or we could do both and see what works best......
>
> If anyone has any opinions on this, let the list know.  Then coordinators
> can send out a mail with a clear list of next steps for people to
> contribute to....
>
> All the best,
> Lisa
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Max
> Senges
> Sent: Mon 14/09/2009 17:30
> To: irp
> Subject: [IRP] layers approach to stratify internet governance
>
>
> Dear all
>
> One of the interesting and constructive debates in our workshop yesterday
> was about how to stratify our struggle for human rights and principles on
> the internet.
>
> Anriette has pointed me to the APC 2006 anual report where she
> distinguishes between: a physical layer, a protocols infrastructure
> layer, and an interactional or relational layer.
>
> As you know Lisa and myself have proposed for very similar layers/commons
> (infrastructure, services (everybody who runs a website or service),
> social = netiquette, and of course Access as an extremely important goal,
> but politically different animal).
>
> The structuring of our discourse around rights is the most natural, but
> as I have argued before: I believe that it is more strategic to address
> existing communities (the infrastructure people, the services, and the
> users) rather than gather around our rights flag.
>
> I copy Anriette's text below.
>
> Looking forward to your comments and especially edits either to the
> google doc (i tried to make it editable for everyone but it should
> definitly work through the invitation i sent to the list) or in the
> http://irc.wiki.apc.org/ (where you need to register)
>
> hasta pronto
> max
>
>
>
> Why is information and communications infrastructure
> so fundamental to development and social change?
> I believe the answer lies in the layered nature of information and
> communications
> infrastructure. It has a physical layer (e.g. the internet backbone,
> radio spectrum,
> computers), a protocol or logical layer (e.g. open standards to ensure
> all sectors of
> the internet "talk" to each other), and content and applications.
> Yet one can also argue that there is another layer, one which is
> constituted by
> the social processes that are facilitated by the infrastructure. It can
> be termed the
> "interactional" or "relational" layer of ICT infrastructure. I
> like to think of this layer
> as having two primary components.
> First, it is where the narratives of globalisation, diversity, inclusion
> and exclusion
> are located. ICT expansion has positive and negative consequences.
> E-governance and
> reliance on the internet for access to information can increase exclusion
> and contribute
> to the formation of new elites. New applications and services emerge
> every day, but
> usually require access to credit cards and bank accounts.
> But it is also in this layer where people, individually and in groups,
> appropriate the
> infrastructure and claim space for protest, self-expression, sharing and
> learning. It is a
> kind of macro-microcosm. Blogging, podcasting, social bookmarking, photo
> sharing,
> citizens' journalism: there are many different labels and tools. There
> is an ongoing
> tug of war between developers, markets, people and cultures of use.
> What about people who do not have access? Is the global communications
> infra-
> structure a public good to which all people should have access?
> APC believes the answer is "yes". People who live in poverty, who are
> socially,
> economically and politically disempowered, deserve access to means that
> will enable
> them to speak, to be heard, to use online services and to participate in
> decisions that
> impact on their lives.
> The second component of the interactional or relational layer of this
> infrastructure
> is the public participation or social justice component. In a real sense
> it can facilitate
> transparency and accountability, participatory policy formulation and
> implementation,
> mobilisation, solidarity and protest. This does not happen because of the
> existence
> of the internet. It happens because people, communities and organisations
> use the
> internet to organise and/or obtain the information they need to improve
> their lives.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> ""Progress is the realization of Utopia"
>   .   .   .   .  .   .   . . . . Oscar Wilde
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr. Max Senges
>
> www.maxsenges.com
> www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>

 and refine this abstract in time to be sent on.

--On 15 September 2009 20:15 +0200 Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 
wrote:

> Hi Lisa and all,
>
>
> You're right that it's difficult to make a decision in the abstract. Let
> me make a methodological proposal: why not taking the issue from both
> sides, and trying to converge? The idea is to work on a matrix where
> rights and layers are crossed, and the matrix elements would be the
> requirements for a given right to be implemented/enforced/upheld at a
> given layer (if relevant).
>
>
> These requirements could be positive or negative, depending on the right
> and the layer. Moreover, the requirements could be of various sorts:
> legal, economical, technical, behavioral, etc.
>
>
> Regarding layers, Anriette's list is probably worth to consider, i.e.:
>
> "physical layer (e.g. the internet backbone, radio spectrum, computers),
> a protocol or logical layer (e.g. open standards to ensure all sectors of
> the internet "talk" to each other), and content and applications."
> In my opinion, there is probably a "usages" layer to be added.
>
>
> Then, and only then, a charter or whatever kind of document might be
> written.
>
>
> Although this reference is old (2003, but after all UDHR is even
> older:)), you may have a look at page 3 of
> http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris-caucus-input.pdf for
> an example of a translation of the right to education and knowledge into
> different requirements, which can easily fit in different layers.
>
>
> Hope this helps,
> Meryem
>
>
>
> Le 15 sept. 09 ? 16:44, Lisa Horner a ?crit :
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
> I think it would be useful to structure the charter on human rights and
> principles according to different "layers" of the communciations
> environment.  The ones I personally findmost useful are infrastructure,
> code, applications and content.  Structuring rights and principles in
> these layers might help us to identify all of the issues and challenges
> involved, and make sure we catch them all.  (nb we did something like
> this int he freedom of expression project - see
> http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principle
> s+for+the+networked+communications+environment for more).
>
> I think it'd make sense to outline the key UDHR rights in the preamble,
> and then flesh them out as rights and principles in the rest of the doc,
> split into layers.
>
> The point was raised in the meeting on sunday that using the language of
> "commons" might be confusing...it's a fairly complex concept, and is best
> known in terms of the "information commons".
>
> However, there wasn't clear consensus on this in the meeting.  So we
> agreed to try and structure the doc according to human rights rather than
> layers, which makes sense if we're translating human rights to apply in
> the internet environment.  I commented that I thought this would be
> difficult as it would be repetitive,,,,many of the rights apply to
> different issues at different layers.
>
> However, tt's difficult to talk about this in the abstract,  We agreed
> that a good place to start with this might be to look at the rights and
> principles currently contained in the charter and look for gaps, things
> to be taken out and ammendments.  Once we've done that, a clear structure
> might emerge, or we could do both and see what works best......
>
> If anyone has any opinions on this, let the list know.  Then coordinators
> can send out a mail with a clear list of next steps for people to
> contribute to....
>
> All the best,
> Lisa
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Max
> Senges
> Sent: Mon 14/09/2009 17:30
> To: irp
> Subject: [IRP] layers approach to stratify internet governance
>
>
> Dear all
>
> One of the interesting and constructive debates in our workshop yesterday
> was about how to stratify our struggle for human rights and principles on
> the internet.
>
> Anriette has pointed me to the APC 2006 anual report where she
> distinguishes between: a physical layer, a protocols infrastructure
> layer, and an interactional or relational layer.
>
> As you know Lisa and myself have proposed for very similar layers/commons
> (infrastructure, services (everybody who runs a website or service),
> social = netiquette, and of course Access as an extremely important goal,
> but politically different animal).
>
> The structuring of our discourse around rights is the most natural, but
> as I have argued before: I believe that it is more strategic to address
> existing communities (the infrastructure people, the services, and the
> users) rather than gather around our rights flag.
>
> I copy Anriette's text below.
>
> Looking forward to your comments and especially edits either to the
> google doc (i tried to make it editable for everyone but it should
> definitly work through the invitation i sent to the list) or in the
> http://irc.wiki.apc.org/ (where you need to register)
>
> hasta pronto
> max
>
>
>
> Why is information and communications infrastructure
> so fundamental to development and social change?
> I believe the answer lies in the layered nature of information and
> communications
> infrastructure. It has a physical layer (e.g. the internet backbone,
> radio spectrum,
> computers), a protocol or logical layer (e.g. open standards to ensure
> all sectors of
> the internet "talk" to each other), and content and applications.
> Yet one can also argue that there is another layer, one which is
> constituted by
> the social processes that are facilitated by the infrastructure. It can
> be termed the
> "interactional" or "relational" layer of ICT infrastructure. I
> like to think of this layer
> as having two primary components.
> First, it is where the narratives of globalisation, diversity, inclusion
> and exclusion
> are located. ICT expansion has positive and negative consequences.
> E-governance and
> reliance on the internet for access to information can increase exclusion
> and contribute
> to the formation of new elites. New applications and services emerge
> every day, but
> usually require access to credit cards and bank accounts.
> But it is also in this layer where people, individually and in groups,
> appropriate the
> infrastructure and claim space for protest, self-expression, sharing and
> learning. It is a
> kind of macro-microcosm. Blogging, podcasting, social bookmarking, photo
> sharing,
> citizens' journalism: there are many different labels and tools. There
> is an ongoing
> tug of war between developers, markets, people and cultures of use.
> What about people who do not have access? Is the global communications
> infra-
> structure a public good to which all people should have access?
> APC believes the answer is "yes". People who live in poverty, who are
> socially,
> economically and politically disempowered, deserve access to means that
> will enable
> them to speak, to be heard, to use online services and to participate in
> decisions that
> impact on their lives.
> The second component of the interactional or relational layer of this
> infrastructure
> is the public participation or social justice component. In a real sense
> it can facilitate
> transparency and accountability, participatory policy formulation and
> implementation,
> mobilisation, solidarity and protest. This does not happen because of the
> existence
> of the internet. It happens because people, communities and organisations
> use the
> internet to organise and/or obtain the information they need to improve
> their lives.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> ""Progress is the realization of Utopia"
>   .   .   .   .  .   .   . . . . Oscar Wilde
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr. Max Senges
>
> www.maxsenges.com
> www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader/Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php