A Perspective on the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)

I've been doing a lot of reading on some mailing lists related to the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), and have need to make some observations - observations which I have shared on some lists, and which I will share here first.

It's important to note my perspective - I'm an advocate of Free Software, of Free Culture, and Free content. In speaking of issues related to these things, despite the common term 'Free', I prefer to focus on the usability. Freedom means nothing if it isn't used, and therefore cannot be measured in any ways unless it is used. Therefore usability is key, and in speaking of usability, it's important to consider who has usability. In a democratic world, the usability would be defined by the majority - and this, I think we can all agree, differs greatly from what we have now.

It's easy to get caught up in debates about Internet Governance and start talking about what is wrong with the system. A lot of private industry wants rules that protect the interests of private industry, and despite what some may say, there isn't a fault with that as an action of self interest. We need private industry.

On the other hand, there are people who want the rules to protect the interests of individuals - and I count myself among this group, though members of this group may consider me to be of the 'enemy' group. I don't know - and frankly, I don't care. I don't claim to be an expert on Patents, on Copyright and on Trademarks - loosely tossed together in a lazy legal salad called 'intellectual property'. I've even been taken to task by RMS himself on my usage of 'intellectual property' in single quotes, and I think he does so for the right reasons. Yet I still do it. Why? That's part of what this little perspective is about.

Vision

It's apparent that the two groups - private industry and advocates for rights of individuals - have differing perspectives on the present systems. It's actually a very ugly thing, and promises to become uglier as within these groups separate factions jockey for position. If this is the future of Internet Governance, we have a severe problem because it will always be a matter of who has the most influence instead of what the best ideas are.

Where is the common vision? What do we, as a species, expect from the internet - and therefore, how do we think it should be governed - and THEREFORE, what has to be changed? This is not a new approach to a new problem. This is an old, proven approach that has been used on many 'problems' in the past. The United States Constitution was written based on a common vision, and though of late it seems to be unimportant, I think around the world we can all agree that it's inception it was a very powerful document. It also upset previous balances that people thought were worth changing - but it did so first by communicating a common vision.

The Constitution of the Internet

Perhaps the Internet needs a Constitution first? That seems sensible. Something has to guide these errant Laws related to the internet. But a search using Google showed that this, too, is not a new idea. In 1998, Cliff Dilloway wrote a Draft. Fred Baker mentions it in an interview in 1994. Dana Blankenhorn mentioned it in 1999. Take a look around on Google's search results for '"Constitution" Internet'.

So wait - if there's a Constitution, do people need to vote? Not really, but there needs to be a body to represent and interpret the Constitution. And that's the real problem.

The Problem

But to get there first, a common vision must be established. And, to date, there is none. Everyone is defining the future based on their own version of the future - and these kids running around with scissors are probably going to participate in the WGIG. So instead of working towards a future, we may very well be working against the future. Or a brighter, more representative future.

Solution

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.