<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 15 April 2013 05:13 PM,
Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca" type="cite">Not
sure about the "...Accordingly..." in the statement.
<br>
<br>
--c.a.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree. The second sentence does not follow from the first. The
amended text, removing 'accordingly' will stand as:<br>
<br>
"We recognise the Internet
as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware,
protocols and software, human intentionality, and
a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set
of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by due
democratic processes. The Internet is to be considered as a global
commons and a global public good*. The design principles and
policies
that constitute the governance of the Internet should must flow from
such recognition of the Internet as a commons
and a public good."
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
(* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public
good', as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her <a
href="http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/toc.html">UNDP
publication</a>, rather than the narrow construction employed by
many neo- classical economists) <br>
<br>
<br>
I have just put a text back for consideration because I have a
feeling that discussions are more focussed and purposeful when there
is a specific text/ purpose towards which they move. So, even if
finally we change every single word in the above, lets see if we can
get to some agreed text for the Caucus.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca" type="cite">
<br>
On 04/15/2013 01:51 AM, parminder wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<br>
Anriette/ All
<br>
<br>
I find this posting, and later ones in the thread very
interesting.
<br>
Indeed a good amount of confusion in this group's internal
interactions
<br>
owe to the fact that while we have some broad process rules, we
have
<br>
very little in terms of substance that we can take as a starting
point
<br>
for our political/ advocacy work. Recognising the Internet as a
commons/
<br>
public good, and seeking that its basic governance principles
flow from
<br>
such a basic understanding of the Internet, is good and useful
basic
<br>
agreement to try to reach for this group,
<br>
<br>
I propose that the caucus adopts this as a/ the basic principle
for
<br>
IGC's political/ advocacy work.
<br>
<br>
I propose that we even go beyond and adopt a working definition
of the
<br>
Internet, absence of which itself has been identified as a major
problem
<br>
that renders many of our discussions/ positions here unclear.
Avri
<br>
proposes the following definition, which I find very
encouraging....
<br>
<br>
"Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting
of
<br>
hardware, protocols and software, and human intentionality
brought
<br>
together by a common set of design principles and
constrained by
<br>
policies fashioned by the stakeholders."
<br>
<br>
<br>
I propose small modifications to it
<br>
<br>
"Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting
of
<br>
hardware, protocols and software, human intentionality, and
a new
<br>
kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set
of
<br>
design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by
due
<br>
democratic processes."
<br>
<br>
<br>
So what I propose for this caucus to adopt is as follows
<br>
<br>
"We recognise the Internet as an emergent, and emerging,
reality
<br>
consisting of hardware, protocols and software, human
<br>
intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality, brought
<br>
together by a common set of design principles and
constrained by
<br>
policies fashioned by due democratic processes. Accordingly,
the
<br>
Internet is to be considered as a global commons and a
global public
<br>
good. The design principles and policies that constitute the
<br>
governance of the Internet should must flow from such
recognition of
<br>
the Internet as a commons and a public good."
<br>
<br>
The text can of course be improved a lot, but I thought it is
good to
<br>
put forward something that the caucus can work upon...
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sunday 14 April 2013 10:28 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The question is, what is needed to
protect and strengthen the internet
<br>
commons?
<br>
As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the
commons.
<br>
I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges
from lack of
<br>
the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active
protection
<br>
of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an
'unregulated'
<br>
internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and
unregulated
<br>
internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.
<br>
<br>
There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the
internet
<br>
remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.
<br>
<br>
The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many
governments
<br>
approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective
of
<br>
protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of
enabling them to
<br>
exercise more control over internet content and use, and user
behaviour.
<br>
<br>
I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet
governance
<br>
is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind.
Not so
<br>
much statement of principles that affirm freedom of
expression,
<br>
'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....
<br>
<br>
I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined,
or what
<br>
kind of entity we understand it to be.
<br>
<br>
When the management and supply of water is being regulated
there are
<br>
also lots of contestation. For example between mines,
communities who
<br>
live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream
subject to
<br>
seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams,
and nature
<br>
conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal
flooding is often
<br>
essential to the survival of many species.
<br>
<br>
Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these
interests
<br>
and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a
common
<br>
resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily
<br>
understood by most that are involved water policy and
regulation. But
<br>
there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and
used and
<br>
often the wrong decisions will be made.
<br>
<br>
I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10
principles
<br>
and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the
internet
<br>
- from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public
good - is. I
<br>
know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit
for a
<br>
while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of
the
<br>
difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest
in internet
<br>
governance.
<br>
<br>
Anriette
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">All of the Internet, like the land
world before it, was once commons.
<br>
Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the
<br>
assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to
buy, began
<br>
to misappropriate those commons and called it property.
Each day
<br>
more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the
linguistic
<br>
commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The
Internet
<br>
commons is almost gone. This its what government do best -
with some
<br>
very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
<br>
<br>
I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet
spaces
<br>
enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A
<br>
neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned.
But the
<br>
language itself or the Internet should not be.
<br>
<br>
Diego Rafael Canabarro <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com"><diegocanabarro@gmail.com></a>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">At the International Studies
Association Annual Convention last week in
<br>
San
<br>
Francisco, an official from the US Department of State
said: "there's
<br>
no
<br>
commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related
to the
<br>
conflict
<br>
presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still
struggling with
<br>
that assertion.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Roland Perry
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><roland@internetpolicyagency.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">One of the most significant I'm
aware of (and I hope this is within
<br>
the remit of your question):
<br>
</blockquote>
It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not
been
<br>
</blockquote>
sufficiently
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">conscious of, so thank you very
much for pointing this out!
<br>
<br>
Greetings,
<br>
Norbert
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The private sector has built
extensive
<br>
networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of
investment on which
<br>
their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers'
pension funds]
<br>
expect a return, versus many customers who feel
entitled to have
<br>
unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly
payment (which
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
they
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">sometimes dress up as "Network
Neutrality").
<br>
<br>
I post this not to support either of the above points
of view, but
<br>
merely to inform readers of the conflict it
unquestionably
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
represents.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
--
<br>
Diego R. Canabarro
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597">http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597</a>
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
<br>
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
<br>
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
<br>
Skype: diegocanabarro
<br>
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
<br>
--
<br>
</blockquote>
Avri Doria
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>