[Ecommerce] GigaNet Symposium in Athens

[William Drake]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understan=
d
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Please distribute as appropriate

Final Program

Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
First Annual Symposium
www.intgovforum.org/IGF_Platform.php

Divani Apollon Palace & Spa Hotel
Athens, Greece
Room: TBA

29 October 2006

The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is an emerging
scholarly community initiated in Spring 2006.  Its four principal objective=
s
are to: support the establishment of a global cohort of scholars
specializing on Internet governance issues; promote the development of
Internet governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study;
advance theoretical and applied research on Internet governance, broadly
defined; and facilitate informed dialogue on policy issues and related
matters between scholars and Internet governance stakeholders (governments,
international organizations, the private sector, and civil society). In thi=
s
context, the GigaNet plans to organize symposia to be held on site prior to
the annual meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This event is
the first in that series.


9:30-9:45    Welcome and Overview

Wolfgang Kleinw=C3=A4chter, Professor of International Communication Policy=
 and
Regulation, University of Aarhus; Denmark


9:45-11:15 Theorizing Internet Governance: The State of the Art

Chair:

Peng Hwa Ang, Dean, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang
Technological University, and Director, Singapore Internet Research Center;
Singapore

Panelists:

=E2=80=9CThe Need For Interdisciplinary Understanding=E2=80=9D
Mary Rundle, Director, Net Dialogue, and Fellow, Berkman Center for Interne=
t
and Society at Harvard University and the Center for Internet and Society a=
t
Stanford University; USA

=E2=80=9CCross-national Collaboration on Internet Governance: Critical Succ=
ess
Factors for Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Cultural Studies=E2=80=9D
Nanette S. Levinson, Associate Professor of International Relations,
American University; Washington DC, USA

=E2=80=9CThe Role of the State in Heterogeneous Governance Arrangements=E2=
=80=9D
Jeanette Hoffman, Research Fellow, Social Science Research Center, and
Partner, the Internet Governance Project; Berlin, Germany

=E2=80=9CAn Economic Rationale for Internet Regulation=E2=80=9D
Filomena Chirico, Post-doc Researcher, Tilburg Center for Law and Economics=
,
Tilburg University; The Netherlands

=E2=80=9CHybrid Regimes, Power, and Legitimacy in Global Governance: =E2=80=
=A8Insights from
Internet Privacy Regulation=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A8Ralf Bendrath, Research Fellow=
, University of
Bremen; Germany

Focus:

In recent years, scholars have begun to analyze Internet governance issues
using the theoretical tools of their respective academic disciplines.  Whil=
e
issues surrounding ICANN have attracted particular attention, there also ha=
s
been significant work done on the international governance of digital
international trade and intellectual property, privacy, security, speech,
and other topics.  Such research often has been rather specialized and
geared toward the distinct audiences interested in each issue-area, which
limited intellectual cross-fertilization. These topics are related, and
Internet governance should be seen as a broad but coherent field of study
that merits elaboration and support.  Mapping the landscape of relevant
theoretical perspectives is an important first step toward this end.

The purpose of this panel is to consider questions such as: What aspects of
Internet governance are uniquely interesting and worthy of scholarly
analysis?  How has Internet governance been addressed by scholars in the
social sciences, humanities, law, and other disciplines, and which
theoretical approaches seem to be the most promising for which issues and
dynamics?  Do these efforts point to the emergence of a coherent research
agenda and the cumulative development of new knowledge? Are there
barriers=E2=80=94intellectual, institutional, and other=E2=80=94that might =
have to be
overcome to advance that agenda? How can Internet governance develop into a=
n
interdisciplinary scholarly field that is taken seriously by academics and
also capable of providing useful inputs to the Internet Governance Forum an=
d
other policy development institutions?  What lessons can be learned, if any=
,
from other fields defined by the object of inquiry/dependent variables
rather than by shared theories and independent variables, e.g.,
=E2=80=9Ccommunication studies,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cinformation studies,=E2=
=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cwomen's studies=E2=80=9D? Are
there national or cultural differences in the ways scholars approach these
matters, and if so how might these be reconciled?


11:15-11:30 Coffee break


11:30-13:00 =E2=80=9CEnhanced Cooperation=E2=80=9D and Interaction among St=
akeholders in
Internet Governance

Chair:

Milton Mueller, Professor of Information Studies, Syracuse University, and
Partner, the Internet Governance Project

Panelists:

=E2=80=9CA European Perspective on Enhanced Cooperation=E2=80=9D
Bernard Benhamou, Senior Lecturer for the Information Society, National
Foundation of Political Science; Paris, France

=E2=80=9C=E2=80=98The Sovereign Right of States:=E2=80=99 Why Multi-Stakeho=
lder Policy Development
is Possible
and Necessary=E2=80=9D
Jeremy Malcolm, Doctoral candidate, Murdoch University; Perth, Australia

=E2=80=9CDistributed Internet Governance: A Chance or a Threat to Democracy=
?=E2=80=9D
Meryem Marzouki, Researcher, National Center for Scientific Research, and
Computer Science
Laboratory of the University Paris 6; France

=E2=80=9CThe Future of Enhanced Cooperation=E2=80=9D
Wolfgang Kleinw=C3=A4chter, Professor of International Communication Policy=
 and
Regulation, University of Aarhus; Denmark

Focus:

In addition to creating the Internet Governance Forum, the Tunis Agenda
calls for =E2=80=9Cenhanced cooperation=E2=80=9D among governments. This la=
nguage originated
with the European Union's June 2005 criticism of US unilateral control of
ICANN. The EU claimed that the WSIS statement constituted, =E2=80=9Ca world=
wide
political agreement providing for further internationalization of Internet
governance, and enhanced intergovernmental cooperation to this end=E2=80=9D=
 and
that, =E2=80=9CSuch cooperation should include the development of globally
applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the
coordination and management of critical Internet resources.=E2=80=9D

The purpose of this panel is to consider questions such as: What are the
causes of US-EU tensions over Internet governance? What institutional form
might such a =E2=80=9Cnew cooperation model=E2=80=9D for deliberations amon=
g governments
take? How viable is the distinction between =E2=80=9Cday-to-day management =
of the
Internet and =E2=80=9Cpublic policy?=E2=80=9D What, more generally, is the =
role of national
governments in Internet governance in relation to other stakeholder groups?
What implications might =E2=80=9Cenhanced cooperation=E2=80=9D have for civ=
il society and
multistakeholder participation? How might such a philosophy lead to changes
in the structure or processes of ICANN?


13:00-14:30  Lunch break (on your own)


14:30-16:00 The Distributed Architecture of Internet Governance

Chair:

William J. Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Globa=
l
Governance, Graduate Institute of International Studies; Geneva, Switzerlan=
d

Panelists:

=E2=80=9CThe Role of International Telecommunications Arrangements in Distr=
ibuted
Internet Governance=E2=80=9D
Don MacLean, Independent consultant (formerly Chief of Strategic Planning
and External Affairs, the International Telecommunication Union); Ottawa,
Canada

=E2=80=9CInstitutional Factors Impacting Participation in Distributed Inter=
net
Governance=E2=80=9D
David Souter, Visiting Professor in Communications Management (formerly
Chief Executive, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization); University
of Strathclyde, United Kingdom

=E2=80=9CStriking a Balance in Guiding Principles for Distributed Internet
Governance=E2=80=9D
Qiheng Hu, President of the Internet Society of China and Chairperson of th=
e
Steering Committee for the China Network and Information Center (formerly
Vice President, Chinese Academy of Sciences); Beijing, China

=E2=80=9CBest Practices for Internet Standards Governance?=E2=80=9D
Laura DeNardis, Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society
Project; New Haven, USA

Focus:

 As the WSIS agreements recognized, Internet governance involves much more
than ICANN or the collective management of naming and numbering. Internet
governance also includes the development and application of internationally
shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs i=
n
a variety of other issue-areas, e.g. technical standardization, cybercrime
and network security, international interconnection, e-commerce,
e-contracting, networked trade in digital goods and services, digital
intellectual property, jurisdiction and choice of law, human rights, speech
and social conduct, cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy and consumer
protection, dispute resolution, and so on. These activities take a variety
of forms and are pursued in a heterogeneous array of settings, including
governmental, intergovernmental, private sector, and multistakeholder
organizations and collaborations. In parallel, the international regimes an=
d
related frameworks they establish vary widely in their institutional
attributes, e.g. the collective action problems addressed, functions
performed, participants involved, organizational setting and decision makin=
g
procedures, agreement type, strength and scope of prescriptions, compliance
mechanisms, power dynamics and distributional biases, etc.  But while there
is now broad recognition that the architecture of Internet governance is
highly distributed, there has been little systematic scholarly analysis or
policy dialogue about its precise nature and implications.

The purpose of this panel is to explore and clarify some of the lingering
ambiguities, including questions such as: Which governance mechanisms are
relatively more or less important in shaping the Internet=C2=B9s evolution =
and
use?  How well do these mechanisms cohere, and are there tensions and gaps
between them? Are there crosscutting issues that merit consideration from
analytical and programmatic standpoints?  Are there generalizable lessons t=
o
be learned by the distinct communities of expertise involved in different
issue-areas with regard to best practices and institutional design?  Does
the distributed architecture pose any challenges with respect to the
effective participation of less powerful stakeholders and the global
community=C2=B9s ability to govern in an effective and equitable manner?  L=
ooking
beyond formalized collective frameworks, under what circumstances, if any,
may private market power or spontaneously harmonized practices constitute
forms of Internet governance? What is the current role of governance
mechanisms for international telecommunications, and what might that role
become in a future marked by convergence and potentially non-neutral next
generation networks?


16:00-16:15 Closing of the Symposium


16:15-16:30 Coffee break


16:30-18:00 GigaNet Business Meeting  (Open to current and prospective
GigaNet members)


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  drake@hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake
*******************************************************


--