Netizen - citizen of the Internet

Recently there's been a lot of discussion on the Internet Governance mailing list about the term netizen. What is it, what does it mean, should we push to have the term officially adopted...
So - online to the dictionary!
Merriam Webster Online
Main Entry: net·i·zen
Pronunciation: 'ne-t&-z&n also -s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: blend of net and citizen
: an active participant in the online community of the Internet

From all the discussion, seems to me that the term netizen is being used to refer to activists in the Internet space. i.e. people with a common mindset and goal, "a community or social purpose and that they would be active to support that purpose" .
Which is an exclusive club. Most citizens around the world are not activist, and do not share a common mindet and/or goal, nor do they often have a community or social purpose. So the netizen, like the citizen activist, is a special breed.

So basically, I agree with those who posit that the term is not inclusive of all the people who are online and use the resources of the Internet, and certainly is not inclusive of the ones who are not yet online. Suppose they come online and decide not to be activist? Would they not be netizens and have the rights afforded to such (if the language goes into the WSIS?)

Also, in the citizen space, there are many who do not actively advocate, but support by economic means (don't shop at Walmart and pay a bit more to support local small business for example). These may equate to those who in the push for open source software, would pay to support open source projects (e.g. Linux) rather than Microsoft (as long as it's easy enough to do so). So, commercial interests can be a form of activism.

In general, I've found that self-interest is the most sure motivator for most people. Very few are totally (or even partially) altruistic (when you really analyse their motives). So I also disagree with the negative color with which this discussion has painted such self-interest. Seems a bit idealistic and exclusionary to me.

Idealism is wonderful, but commercialism to an extent, as well as self-interest, has driven the recent massive growth of internet use. Coming from a developing country, use of ICTs is pushed by economic factors - in Trinidad, we use VOIP to save $$ when calling abroad - if the phone rates were lower, a lot of people wouldn't go to the trouble of using VOIP. A big Government push in community/household computer ownership was lobbied for by the computer salespeople. So the commercial interests did assist to an extent. If Google makes the net easier to use so that activists can get information easier and faster, is it a bad thing that they primarily do so to make money for themselves?

ICANN and .xxx

A lot has been discussed about the .xxx issue. This is my take on the issues involved.

1) The processes and procedures of ICANN wrt delegation of new gTLDs. They followed a process that while not perfect, was relatively transparent and equitable. After this process was finished, and the approval given, and the company who had applied spent its $$ and got set up to start selling registrations to the new gTLD, came the second issue -

2) Political pressure on the US govt from the religous right. They got letters, and the response was to demand from ICANN that they hold the registration (after already having decided and communicated this decision to the registrar company) and ICANN complied. The only reason to hold it is to reverse it.

3) The US govt has the power to UNILATERALLY decide not to allow the gTLD to be entered into the global root zone file that (short version) basically allows the computers on the Internet to find each other (it's a lot more complex, but I'm boiling it down here, so please, people don't abuse me for the slight inaccuracy in this) as they are in control of editing the file.

So - ICANN is bowing to political prssure. Under the current system, it can't really do otherwise, as the US govt (DoC) is its "boss."
Issues - what is the role of a government in regards to this?
Is the creation of new gTLDs a technical or moral or political decision?
Where should that power lie - with governments, with a multistakeholder body, with ICANN? with the US DoC?

And one way to really take the issue out and away from the pornography part is to imagine that the gTLD under discussion and possible revoking is a .woman or a .gender gTLD. I thnk that the IG issues must be separate from the moral issues of what .xxx means.
Interestingly, one of the comments that came up in other discussions on this is that .xxx means nothing in some asian cultures - so the xxx=porn isssue is not an issue everywhere!

Caribbean and IG - how do we get involved?

One question that we still struggle with is how to talk about Internet Governance in a manner that can engage the general population. How do we interest more people in this issue?
We have not been able in the past to move past the concept of Internet Governance as an arcane and technical topic that really doesn�t have much practical use. I�ve seen this in the general population, women and men both. The definition of IG that the WGIG promulgated is very high-level. We need, I think, practical applications and ideas to bring it home to people why they should care about it.

What we need is a vision that articulates how new technologies are a community asset, an instrument of public policy and an investment to build the future.

The policies that are being promulgated at this very minute - these policies determine access to funding, to infrastructure, to training and capacity building. If the national, regional and international internet governance regime is not impacted by communities, their issues will not be reflected in policies and these policies will not be beneficial to these communities. Thus, the best way to interest people in IG is to show them where their self-interest is intersecting with IG policies that are being promulgated in their name, but may not be beneficial to them.

The Caribbean is only now beginning to make steps towards understanding IG issues and looking at how these issues affect us, from a development perspective. It's a good time to get involved. We can get in on the ground floor, and have a positive influence on the regional process. However, with regar to the world stage, the region is late to the party. We absolutely need to move fast lest we miss the party entirely.

Internet Governance - A Review in the Context of the WSIS Process

Internet Governance - A Review in the Context of the WSIS Process
by Carlos A. Afonso

This document provides information on the current Internet governance transition processes, discussing some of the approaches being submitted to public discussion, and reviews the final report of the WGIG. It also provides brief historical and reference information on the current global governance system specifically created for the Internet. In addition, it presents a review of the perspectives on Internet governance from the point of view of the organized groups of
civil society organizations who have been involved in the corresponding discussions both within and outside the WGIG.

On-line at: http://wsispapers.choike.org/internet_governance.pdf

IPR and IG for development

I think that the WGIG report was a good start at defining IG and the issues involved. The 4 clusters in the background report are, IMO, very good as a categorisation that can be taken forward for quite a while. There were over 40 issues considered by the WGIG in the context of IG. Many of these were not strict IG issues according to the definition, but were considered becasue there was at the time no other organisation looking at said issues.

The IPR issue was left, by the WGIG, to the WIPO, as the WIPO is working on IPR and development issues (unfortunately the last meeting ended in a stalemate as the USA and Japan stonewalled). However, IPR issues do have a forum in which they can be debated and discussed. The WGIG report included a discussion of the issues for educational purposes, but clearly left the management of IPR to WIPO. The WIPO is currently working on opening the process to business and CS. It hasn't happened to the extent that CS would like, but the recent meetings have been open. WIPO also ran an extensive online consultation recently, to which many developing country reps contributed.

Coming from a developing country that has benefited from current IPR legislation, both in terms of software/hardware development for the oil industry as well as the entertainment industry, I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief that extending the IPR regime to digital product is bad for developing countries. The issue at hand is that the majority of IP that has been created was created or registered by developed countries. The solution is not to attack IPR rights but to develop our own IP and then use the current regime to protect it the way developed countries and companies and individuals do.

The choice of a licensing scheme has to be left up to the creators of the IP. If we choose to give away our IPR to assist in development, then that has to be our choice. If there is a push for a regime which forces creators to give up their IPR to developing countries, it is clear that this will stifle creation and innovation, as many musicians, filmmakers etc have already stated.

With regard to national laws - there is already pressure for national laws to conform to the international regime. If these laws do not conform or are not enforced, then the creators of the IP have every right to refuse to allow their material to be used in those countries. The current level of digital protection (software activation etc) is only IMO detrimental to privacy in that it allows the identification of infringers of copyright (people who have broken the IPR laws, aka criminals). As a producer of IP, I cannot see this as a bad thing - to allow me to find out who has stolen my property.

MDGs and resource scarcity

I have been looking at the MDGs in the context of global resource scarcity. Right now, a large part of the increased cost of oil is the push on the demand side by developing countries that are pushing development goals, tied into the decline in oil production by the large producers (mainly Saudi Arabia). Has anyone considered the requirements in non-renewable resources if the MDGs are met with the current technology (oil based)?
This came into my mind when I was reading about the problem that Nicaragua in particular and some other Caribbean countries are having with sustaining growth with the increasing price of oil. The current price floor is US$50/barrel. If it goes up (as it is expected to), then how can developing countries afford to develop?
UNLESS the development is tied to intense research and development and implementation of alternative energy sources, such as wind, wave, solar.
IMO, blind charging ahead to implement the MDGs without looking at the resources needed (and not just financial) and the impact on the environment, to me might lead us to a worse case than we are at now.
Take a look at http://www.peakoil-ps.com for some articles including the one on Nicaragua.

Hurricane part 3

Still raining. Lots of rain. Pouring rain. High winds. No flooding in my area, but other areas, still to the East (a couple of miles) have lost power, phone and there is flooding, trees down, etc. No reports of injuries or anything like that yet.
Emily has started to strengthen a lot. Last report claims a "burst of energy". Wonder where she got that from? The other islands to the North are starting to get blasted. Poor Grenada is getting hit AGAIN, 8 months after Ivan destroyed 90% of the housing on the island. Most rebuliding has only now started, and some are glad that they haven't - imaging rebuilding only to lose your house again...