With 15 speakers and more than 50 attendants, the colloquium fully reached its goals in presenting multidisciplinar and multiprofessionnal approaches and giving way to lively discussions.

Here are the report by Françoise Massit-Folléa and Paul Mathias , the slides and the audiorecordings for each speaker (2 are in english, the other ones in french).

Vox Internet II colloquium Report, "Internet Governance and the Dynamics of the Commons: the Issue of Access"

By Françoise Massit-Folléa and Paul Mathias

Debate overview

First of all, we must explain the title, which might appear somewhat opaque. If we view the Internet not as an “object” but as part of the contemporary experience, shared on an increasingly large scale (1.6 billion users worldwide), then we must enquire: shared by whom? How? In what aim? These are basic questions – which we sometimes forget to ask.
The theme of Internet governance was highlighted at the WSIS as an emblematic example of “people-focused” institutional innovation, or a step towards a “ubiquitous, transparent and democratic” reconfiguration of collective action during the current era of globalised networks. However, while this unresolved debate is still ongoing within various international bodies, including the Internet Governance Forum, and despite the recent “reform” of ICANN, certain technological advances and political changes have made “global governance” less relevant, in our view. Hence we note the resurgence of many traditional types of political thought and action.
Nevertheless, the topic remains crucial, as the debate has shifted to another area of questioning, less focused on procedures (or how to govern) and more focused on substance (i.e. the values that underpin governance): is the Internet a “global common good”? To answer this question, we must first agree on what part of the Internet system can be relevant to such a query. Is it the open TCP/IP protocol, which forms its architecture? Or its critical resources (e.g. IP addresses and domain names) that organise how it operates? Or “information”, the immaterial good that it transmits on command? Or the opportunity for maximum communication across geographic borders that it affords for those that can use it? Is the answer resting on all these things combined?
The problem is that this “global common good” concept is far from well established: a generally accepted definition is elusive given the various economic interpretations or other legal, political or ethical connotations. Hence the title for this seminar: we preferred to speak of the Internet “commons” in order to describe (and to promote) this networking experience. We consider this experience by focusing on the uses of the Internet, which more or less converge with former practices, but especially disrupt the latter. This prompts us to examine these uses in the light of a purely communicative requirement, looking at skills, tools and values with the aim of highlighting the path towards productive coordination and shared responsibility.
The Vox Internet research project has always implemented a twofold approach, comprising description and reflection: observing stakeholders and investigating their assumptions, abilities and aspirations. This approach also underscores the numerous formal and informal norms (resulting from the technology involved, the market, society or legislation) that form the Internet’s affordances, and analyses the impact of these numerous norms on regulation of the digital world. By considering governance from the standpoint of “ends pursued collectively by players”, as proposed by the works of Jacques Lenoble’s team at the University of Louvain-la-Neuve [1] , this research aims to pick out dynamic principles that can clarify and organise the construction of a common world: a digital universe, indeed, but which is increasingly congruent with the physical world, such that some stakeholders are currently calling for a Digital Ecology “Constitution”, with the twofold meaning of process and instrument.

Central theme

In only a day and a half, not all these questions could be covered: accessing the Internet, existing online, and exiting the network … even though all are related to Internet governance – a term that is also the subject of numerous controversies. A choice was necessary, and we therefore focused on the “access” theme.
In scientific literature, Internet access is addressed from three standpoints. The first results from studies of the “digital divide”. This standpoint was central in our works, but we wished to strip out connotations of miserabilism or paternalism [2].
The two other approaches were handled in a supplementary fashion. On the one hand, reference was made to “hypercapitalism”, as addressed by Jeremy Rifkin in "The Age of Access" [3] , including this key sentence: “Our social status now depends more on access than on property”. On the other hand, research into various forms of censorship were considered: for instance, the book Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (Palfrey, Zittrain et al) [4]. illustrates and explains how and by whom the freedom to use the Internet is threatened in the name of profit or national security.
Lastly, we chose to substitute the term “entry right” for “access” in order to signal both the value (as a principle) of societal demand and the search for institutional responses (which are not necessarily permanent and cannot always be ranked in order of priority).

Organisation of the seminar’s sessions

The order of the themes (networks and literacy, open knowledge, and regulation of physical access) was admittedly chosen initially for organisational reasons. However, in the end, we found it interesting to avoid the usual order, i.e. by reversing the so-called temporal and pragmatic sequence of physical access followed by access to content. This explains why we initially emphasised the ordinary practices of the network, then “expert” uses (broadening this term to include the “experienced”), before ending with the most material, concrete conditions for access to infrastructure. This was a means to avoid accusations of technological determinism… and especially a way to assert that the Internet’s socio-technical system is first and foremost a means of communication between human beings, regardless of how “equipped” they are with informational tools and codes, i.e. of Internet users that create interconnected groups but nonetheless remain singular given the context of their practices.
Each session reflected Vox Internet’s multidisciplinary approach, openly mixing sociological, economic, political, cognitive, legal, philosophical and ethical approaches. We did not intend to favour the “bazaar” over the “cathedral” systematically (to use the terms of Eric Raymond [5]), but rather the question of the Internet in general, and the “entry rights” to the Internet in particular, must be examined using several complementary viewpoints, which in turn refer to the full range of human and social sciences:

 The users’ viewpoint (seen less as consumers than as readers/producers of content and devices), which implies reflective feedback on Internet users’ practices, their level of mastery of these devices, their social embedding and significations.

 The market viewpoint, which breaks down into several different perspectives:
1) A growing amount of data and knowledge sources is being “cornered” by commercial players with monopolistic aims: under the cover of “giving access to all global knowledge”, these players define and appropriate entire areas of the Internet and of knowledge.
2) Furthermore, numerous other players continuously demand open access to areas which are broad in both geographic and social terms.
3) Lastly, citizens are increasingly worried about the goals and means of “global digitalisation” [6] by renewing protests against progress being confiscated by an alliance between experts, governments and the commercial sector.
This leads us to the third and final viewpoint: public digital policy. All evidence indicates that public policy is still too often split between economic competitiveness and concerns for the general welfare. The division of portfolio responsibilities within the European Commission is a recent example. The “Information Society and Media” portfolio is now renamed “Digital Agenda” and held by the former Competition Commissioner, while the former Information Society and Media Commissioner is now responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. Turf conflicts may be in the making.
At this stage, we would point out that the term “device” must be understood in its broad meaning. Philippe Aigrain explained this clearly in his analysis of Giorgio Agamben’s work [7] : “The conflicts surrounding the production of legislative, regulatory or technical devices for information systems and the Internet pit the theologians of appropriation – not just of content – against various players working towards a large “profanation” (or “desanctification”), creating a shared future for everyone. The question today is not just the devices, but also how many of us have the opportunity to appropriate our own future somewhat... [considering that] this can be achieved at very different levels of involvement, ranging from a simple political sorting of the devices that we agree to be trained on or informed about, to investing in the production of devices that allow the time to appropriate them, enabling both shared production and individuality… [8]”

Contributions of the three sessions

“Networks and literacy”

We used the term “literacy” because the words education, skills or capacity do not really encompass all the “dispositions” required for the user to master the various “devices” of Internet access. Literacy was addressed from both a technical and a cognitive angle, and we saw how learning is simultaneously based on innovation and habit, similarities and differences, with on the one hand the example of social network architectures (for which Dominique Boullier proposed a “compass” that combines attachment/detachment and certainty/uncertainty), and the measurement of linguistic diversity in cyberspace on the other (for which Daniel Prado showed that linguistic diversity is increasing in relative terms but decreasing in absolute terms with the extension of e-commerce).
Moreover, the notion of digital literacy gives renewed emphasis to the questions involving the tools and purpose of access to knowledge: the promotion of e-learning, for instance, completely ignores a point addressed by Laurent Thévenot [9] as early as 1997, namely that “skill norms are confused with product norms”. This is so true that the educational effort itself must be completed, as methodically underscored by Divina Frau-Meigs.

“Open knowledge”

This session opened with Jack Balkin’s [10] quotation stating that “A2K [11] is the boss. Intellectual property is just one of the employees”. Then, it referred to Jamie Love’s [12] reminding of the necessary but difficult reconciliation to be made between the two parts of Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):
1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
This and other contradictions are present in the issues underpinning the four presentations given during this session.
Jos de Mul, describing the creation of new sciences such as “biomics”, inspired hope but also sparked panic regarding the new information avatar of life sciences and the uncertain consequences of this innovation.
Cécile Méadel, analysing the buzz surrounding a medical article on H1N1 influenza vaccination, highlighted the involvement of non-specialists in building knowledge by creating a reasoned “opinion”.
Dominique Cardon, describing the “horizontal surveillance” at work in the governance of online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, deciphered the underlying normative innovation applied to building knowledge on a collective scale.
Hervé Le Crosnier’s presentation resituated these areas of enquiry based on the notion of knowledge as a “common good”, asking which principles and instruments can enable knowledge sharing to be increased globally.

“Regulation of physical access”

It has already been largely proven that the digital divide between info-haves and info-have-nots is not limited to the material conditionality of infrastructures and connections, but is played out at the frontier between knowledge and power, between community will and commercial predation or national sovereignty that block the construction of knowledge as a common good and threaten its long-term survival.
Thus, our focus was to question the pertinence or inadequacies of public policy on this topic. The conclusions entail a fair amount of criticism, either with regard to the relative inability of public policies to measure real uses (as demonstrated by Raphaël Suire with analyses based on a series of surveys carried out in Brittany, France), their way of handling controversies involving net neutrality (by resituating such controversies within the history of communications regulations in the US, Olivier Sylvain’s analysis nevertheless pointed out an overly conventional view of “net neutrality”) or of opening up to a perspective other than the interests and approaches of Western societies (on this point, Annie Chéneau-Loquay underscored the imbalance between infrastructure investment choices in Africa, on one side, and the actual collective uses and prevailing informal economy, on the other side). Three levels of tension were highlighted: local vs. global, a procedure-based approach vs. one based on values, and commodities vs. uncertainties.
All these factors make even more urgent the need for “internormative dialogue” to “draft rules of conduct” suitable for the Internet, to borrow two formulations used in the title of a book by Philippe Amblard [13]. However, this “dialogue” cannot be either a pure discussion or an already-available instrument. It still has to be built, on the basis of principles as well as practices. This is how we sought to examine the “Internet commons”.

Conclusion

Current events in France, elsewhere in Europe, in the US and in the rest of the world are marked by a shift in the boundaries of the Internet experience and regulations:

  Nation-states are returning to the fore, with increasingly strict legislation (note for instance Google’s misadventures in Italy or China, or the succession of ineffective anti-piracy laws in France) and declining confidence in the possibilities of global governance.

  As a result, the multistakeholderism option put forth by the WSIS is being challenged in its ability to improve transparency and equity in international relations involving the Internet – unless the reflection on its governance takes place within specific territorial boundaries (as shown by the creation of regional or national IGFs on almost every continent). In our view, another illustration of this changing trend can be seen in researchers’ increasing reference to Elinor Ostrom’s works on the governance of local stable commons [14] .

  Lastly, proportional to the growth in the number and diverse statuses of Internet users, there is a growing difficulty in adjusting the order of regulations between the requirements of freedom and those of security. For instance, the conflict between the right to access information or culture, and restrictive intellectual property rights, or the distorsion between consumer uses and those that enable creation and participation.
Our approach was rigorous, but we believe that the success of this seminar proves that it was needed for two reasons:

  To convince the researchers that Internet governance has a plural dimension, but also that research on this topic can put forth certain strong concepts, instead of elaborating year after year a disparate cataloguing process.

  To draw modest but definite lessons from this stage in the Vox Internet project regarding the commitment of researchers, who are also citizens of the digital world.
This two-day seminar indeed represented the conclusion of the second stage of the Vox Internet programme, which has reached the end of its financing from ANR (the French national research agency). Yet we did not wish to make it a “closing seminar”, as we are persuaded that our research team’s motivation, the resonance of these works in the academic environment, and future changes in Internet governance leave open a path to continuing to reflect and debate these subjects. Mireille Delmas-Marty’s closing remarks offered further proof of this, as she invited participants to continue working together in a dynamic, imaginative way.

Speeches content

26th Friday :

General introduction : FRANÇOISE MASSIT-FOLLEA (scientific coordinator)

"Literacy" Session- Chair : PAUL MATHIAS (General inspector of philosophy)

DOMINIQUE BOULLIER (National Foundation for Political Sciences, Paris):
Collaborative devices compared according to different architectures in social networks.

DANIEL PRADO (Directorate for multilingualism and cyberspace, Latin Union, Paris) :
Presence of languages in cyberspace.

DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS (University of Paris Sorbonne Nouvelle) : Education to electronic media and human rights: a public, open, collaborative and ethical approach.

"Open knowledge" Session - Chair: DANIELE BOURCIER (CERSA, CNRS-University of Paris II)

JOS DE MUL (Erasmus University, Rotterdam) : The governance of biomics : commercial vs open source biology

DOMINIQUE CARDON (France Telecom Laboratory) : How Wikipedia is governed?

CECILE MEADEL (CSI, Mines ParisTech, Paris) : Knowledge construction and validation in electronic exchanges on medical issues.

HERVE LE CROSNIER (University of Caen) : Building the Common Goods of Knowledge?.

27th saturday:

"Material access" Session - Chair: PHILIPPE BARBET (University of Paris XIII) RAPHAËL SUIRE (University of Rennes 1 / CREM-CNRS / MARSOUIN) : Public Policy vs Digital Divide Measurement.

OLIVIER SYLVAIN (Fordham Law School, New-York) : Internet Policy and Democratic Legitimacy : Broadband Regulation in the USA.

ANNIE CHENEAU-LOQUAY (CNRS-IEP Bordeaux) : Universal access and informal economy : Internet deployment in Africa.

Conference by MIREILLE DELMAS-MARTY, professor at Collège de France, Chair Comparative Law Studies and Internationalisation of Law.

.