[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I swore I was going to stay out of this particular substantive issue.*  
But as usual I am breaking another promise to myself. 
Sometimes, I really can't stand the irresponsibility of a person who can't even keep her commitments to herself.  
I should be ashamed.

On 27 Apr 2013, at 12:29, parminder wrote:

> I think the current text stands as follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me if I am wrong)
> "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders.  While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. "
> 

In any case,  in terms of this.  
I actually think it is a very good aspirational statement.  
To some extent I can say it gives me the warm and fuzzies.  
It touches on some of my most emotional political aspirations.

But I could _not_ support it  as either 
- a definition (which is what I thought the exercise had been about) or 
- an IGC's advocacy statement.

(Notice I will avoid, without comment, discussing the issue of whether the IGC is a representative of Civil society and has legitimacy as the voice of Civil society on Internet governance issues. I will not, therefore, discuss the statement as Civil Society aspirations)

As an advocacy statement, which I did not know we were working on, i see no strategy discussed in this.  What does this statement claim we want done? What are we planning to advocate?

And that is where my problem with this aspirational statement really comes in.  
Like the working definition of Internet governance this is wonderfully ambiguous. 
But the devils are in the definitions of the things referenced.

For example, "closed or proprietary online spaces" could mean:

1. The single root  controlled by a single technology.
2. That certain names within that single root are so precious (the refer to sacred objects, national sovereignty or cultural sensistivity) they must be protected as part of the commons 
3. That the environment created by FB, Google or Linkedin (3 i use) isn't a private space to be used in whatever way the voluntary participants allow (aka voting with their fingers)
4. That one has to pay to gain access to a 4g network 
5. That the NYTimes on line should be available free to anyone who wishes
6. That Circleid makes me log on to comment in its web site
7. That all repositories of academic article produced with the assistance of public moneys aren't open
8. ....

i agree with some of these, to some extent, but not all to every extent.  
And I read that as an indication we should be working on opening new spaces. 
And supporting the open spaces that are out there.
Not controlling old ones.

There are similar question sets for almost every phrase in this wonderful aspirational document.

Which of these specific issues do we  need action on?  

My fear* is that if we agree to this statement, for every cause of everyone with an agenda in the IGC, and I expect most of us have an agenda though some may not, they will be able to point to the aspirations on which the IGC has agreed and say:

"But you agreed that this was our advocacy goal!"

Hell, I can even see an argument-opportunist like myself doing so.

Or would here keynote talks where some one sys:

"The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..."

I gott to admit, I can't see myself saying this one, but I can imagine others who might.

Nope, I could not agree to this advocacy statement.
And there is no tweaking of the words that could convince me to agree as the problem is not in the words but the baggage.


avri

*
substantive issue - aka rat's nest
fear -- did anyone see the marvelous cartoon on kinds of fear, I can find it, but it is out there)



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t