I. Context and objectives
The concept of governance is commonly used today as a response to a
demand for social regulations that respect the democratic conditions. These
conditions are currently unsettled by the globalisation of the economy and
the rise of the individualism that networks support. New constraints, but also
new opportunities, are related to communication devices (technical and
relational) that raise the question of the stability of standards and norms at
the national, European and international levels.
The development of Internet as a «critical infrastructure» for all economic
organisations, public authorities, daily conveniences (e-health, e-education,
e-administration, e-commerce, etc.) and for individual or collective expression
places it at the forefront of the issue of «public goods», alongside the climate
or biodiversity problems. However, the principles of openness, availability
and plasticity that are built into its initial architecture run up against conflicts
of interest and values. The latter involve legitimacies and diffuse competing
responsibilities that make the construction of the Internet as «a common
good» a rather hypothetical process.
Neither data-processing techniques, nor substantive law, nor the concept
of universal morals make it possible to go beyond this horizon of perplexity.
The search for Internet ethics goes beyond the traditional dividing line between
the justification of norms and their application, which is always threatened
by hegemonic temptations or cultural relativism. Along the lines of the
advances in medical ethics, this «NetEthics» could emerge from the pragmatic
and pluralistic inclusion of the forms, tools and aims of reticular practices and
their governance.
The World Summit on the Information Society gave itself a mandate that it
endeavours to implement through the annual sessions of the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF): building a multilateral, transparent and democratic
form of governance for the Internet, which expresses and reinforces the
preoccupation with human rights. This prospect seems largely accepted in
theory. However, with the management of the critical resources of the Internet,
the development of new applications and the controversial governance of
behaviours, the task is immense and the consensus breaks down. Often
contradictory claims and some more or less successful attempts do not fill
the gap between the traditional political system and the new governance
frameworks involving civil society. The new organisation and structure of the
international institutions, gradually opened up to experts – and even lay
people – is not enough to integrate normative dispositions that combine
technological and economic innovations, democratic aspirations, institutional
renewal and finalised objectives.
Nevertheless, we cannot give up the quest for principles that would
make it possible to resolve the fundamental conflict of norms arising with the
Internet. This conflict lies between privacy and security, freedom of expression
and public morals, right of access for all and at the same time the right to be
disconnected; it is a question of concrete facts and abstract rights. But this
implies first dealing with a few preliminary questions: under what conditions
are normative preferences discussed, established and brought up to date?
What are the processes and forms by which the rights and responsibilities of
web users can be protected or specified in a given context? How are ethical
considerations and references built into devices and processes? What
fundamental principles (individual rights and public freedoms) are involved,
called into question or revitalised? What theoretical and practical tools make
it possible to delineate the framework of action, and how do they relate to
diverse predefined legislative frameworks? How to consider the principles of
coexistence and the possibilities of coordination of the multiple stakeholders
without encouraging the myth of the global Internet and worldwide governance?
In the dual context of a multicultural Europe and a planetary infrastructure
of material and social communication, the ethical stake of Internet governance
presents itself as a challenge of assuming – without encouraging radical
relativism – the plurality of values, norms, cultures and traditions. More
modestly, an initial stage of research consists of elucidating the way in which
Internet governance challenges and disrupts traditional regulations (political,
legal and judicial) by reactivating old questions (property rights, the social
divide, crime, censorship, underdevelopment, etc.) or by facing more modern
interrogations (technological convergence and man-machine relationship, social
mobility and territory, private and social identities, etc.). A second requirement
of research results in exploring the consequences of the new dynamics for the
production of norms and standards with a view to envisaging new principles
of coordination and determining methods of agreement.
II. The process
A comprehensive approach to the methods (institutional and non-formal)
of Internet governance requires:
a) A theoretical analysis of governance issues: in a context of weak legitimacy
where the common good still has to be built, we need to test the assumption
of an internal limit to the traditional and neoclassical approaches. We will
question: 1) the inadequacies of the current institutional design to ensure
maximum achievement of the normative hopes of the stakeholders and
users, as well as 2) the limits of the traditional belief that regulations
based on market mechanisms or the intervention of national or supranational
public authorities are sufficient to guarantee a normative construction of
the common good.
b) An in-depth examination of the dead ends of western ethnocentrism and
cultural relativism, in order to clarify the ways through which local
governances could contribute to some global governance of the Internet.
c) An attentive study of experiments, devices and methods for building norms
and standards in various contexts, in order to reveal their underlying
rationales, divergences and convergences. Building on this, we will try to
establish a typology of these rationales aimed at approaching the
technological and political conditions of the possibility of pluralism tied to
the common good.
d) A more applied analysis of the formal structures involved in Internet
governance (in particular ICANN and the IGF), bringing evidence of their
current political limits in the definition and design of collective action.
e) An exploration of the consequences for public actors of the new governance
tools produced by the circulation of «collective statements»
For this purpose, the seminar will associate theoretical investigations
with case studies, in the aim of leading to some recommendations. It will be
held in five workshops, according to the following agenda:
Workshop 1: Friday, October 31, 2008 - Namur
Theoretical approach to the problems and limits of governance defined in
terms of ethical normativity and elaboration of a common good.
Led by Philippe Goujon (FUNDP, Namur, Be.) and Sylvain Lavelle (CETS, ICAM,
Lille, France)
The inclusion of social reflexivity in the relation between the justification and
the application of norms makes it possible to give its full place to ethical
normativity, which is often marginalised by technical normativity, whether
instrumental or procedural. The aim of alternative governance integrating the
relationship between justification and context is that of building a common
good. It requires going beyond the implicit postulate of the absence of
contradiction between maximising individual happiness and public common
interest. It suggests «reflecting on the possible objectivation of the conditions
necessary to satisfy the requirements of such a public interest» (Mayntz) to
highlight the democratic, deliberative and practical dimensions of an ethical
form of Internet governance.
Workshop 2: Friday, December 12, 2008 - Lille
Intercultural problems involved in the application contexts of norms
Led by Sylvain Lavelle (ICAM, Lille) and Philippe Goujon (CITA, FUNDP, Namur)
The articulation of universal norms and their contexts of application raises a
purely intercultural problem of adjustment of the rational justifications and
social appropriations. The concept of «interculturalness», symmetrical to that
of acculturation, has been explored at length from a mainly methodological
point of view by the field of cultural anthropology. It is appropriate to draw all
the conclusions from this perspective with regard to the issue of ethical and
democratic governance of the norms and standards of the Internet. In
particular, we will analyse and question the effective processes of anticipation,
translation and adaptation, if not imposition, of the norms and standards of
universal reach to a variety of cultural contexts (Europe, America, Asia). More
specifically, in the case of the Internet, we will focus our attention on: a) the
methods of designers to anticipate users’ cultures; b) web users’ methods for
participating in the transformation of the cultures of innovation and invention;
and c) the criticism of the assumption of a universal regulation in the form of
charters or codes.
Workshop 3: Friday, March 27, 2009 - Milan
Technical normalcy and Internet governance: Socio-technical and socio-ethical
dimensions
Led by Norberto Patrignani (Catholic University of Milan)
The technical normativity of the Internet is particularly problematic as its
underlying socio-technical and socio-ethical aspects generally remain removed
from any form of reflexive criticism. The technical devices (supports, systems,
networks) are often represented as complex objects. And, they are associated
with a sort of structural and functional neutrality. However, it is important «to
open the black box» of technology in order to identify and discuss the forms
of normativity that these devices convey, with or without any deliberate
intention from their designers. In particular, this is a question of determining
to which degrees and according to which methods the decision-making and
regulatory systems that govern the technical norms and standards of the
Internet: 1) can integrate socio-technical and socio-ethical designs into their
development; and 2) can be opened up to political checks and balances. In
this workshop we will investigate the best blend of the several approaches or
dimensions for governing a «public common» like the Internet: architecture
(hardware, software), laws, education, etc.
Workshop 4: Friday, June 12, 2009 - Paris
Forms of execution and institutionalisation of Internet governance
Led by Françoise Massit-Folléa (Vox Internet II, France)
The technical normativity of the Internet is particularly problematic as its
underlying socio-technical and socio-ethical aspects generally remain removed
from any form of reflexive criticism. The technical devices (supports, systems,
networks) are often represented as complex objects. And, they are associated
with a sort of structural and functional neutrality. However, it is important «to
open the black box» of technology in order to identify and discuss the forms
of normativity that these devices convey, with or without any deliberate
intention from their designers. In particular, this is a question of determining
to which degrees and according to which methods the decision-making and
regulatory systems that govern the technical norms and standards of the
Internet: 1) can integrate socio-technical and socio-ethical designs into their
development; and 2) can be opened up to political checks and balances. In
this workshop we will investigate the best blend of the several approaches or
dimensions for governing a «public common» like the Internet: architecture
(hardware, software), laws, education, etc.
Workshop 5: Friday, October 16 or October 23, 2009 - Bordeaux
Global Internet governance, intercultural information ethics and developing
countries: the African case
In collaboration with the CEAN, Bordeaux – NetSuds /CNRS (Annie Chéneau-
Loquay)
A privileged case study is the appropriation of ICT, in particular the Internet,
in Africa countries, and in turn, their participation in the overall regulation of
the Internet. Africa indeed represents the typical example of a singular and
diversified cultural unit that hitherto has not successfully exerted a significant
influence on the worldwide governance of Internet. It is thus important to
inquire into the methods by which various African countries mobilise at the
national and/or regional level and position themselves in the international
debates. It is in particular a question of specifying: a) what are the resources
of social reflexivity invested as regards governance in the critical articulation
between technical and ethical normativity; b) which factors would be capable
of developing this reflexivity in the case of Africa, and by extension, in other
countries in the process of development; and c) which options in terms of
local institutional design could be used in the project of local Internet
governances enriching and articulating with the international context.
|
Syndication
Imprimer
l'article 
Article
au format PDF
Syndication de contenu