<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"><br>
Anriette/ All<br>
<br>
I find this posting, and later ones in the thread very
interesting. Indeed a good amount of confusion in this group's
internal interactions owe to the fact that while we have some
broad process rules, we have very little in terms of substance
that we can take as a starting point for our political/ advocacy
work. Recognising the Internet as a commons/ public good, and
seeking that its basic governance principles flow from such a
basic understanding of the Internet, is good and useful basic
agreement to try to reach for this group, <br>
<br>
I propose that the caucus adopts this as a/ the basic principle
for IGC's political/ advocacy work.<br>
<br>
I propose that we even go beyond and adopt a working definition of
the Internet, absence of which itself has been identified as a
major problem that renders many of our discussions/ positions here
unclear. Avri proposes the following definition, which I find very
encouraging....<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality
consisting of hardware, protocols and software, and human
intentionality brought together by a common set of design
principles and constrained by policies fashioned by the
stakeholders."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I propose small modifications to it <br>
<br>
<blockquote>"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."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
So what I propose for this caucus to adopt is as follows<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"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. Accordingly, 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."<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
The text can of course be improved a lot, but I thought it is good
to 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>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:516AE03C.2070406@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet
commons?
As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.
I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of
the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection
of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'
internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated
internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.
There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet
remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.
The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments
approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of
protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to
exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.
I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance
is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so
much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression,
'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....
I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what
kind of entity we understand it to be.
When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are
also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who
live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to
seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature
conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often
essential to the survival of many species.
Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests
and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common
resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily
understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But
there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and
often the wrong decisions will be made.
I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles
and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet
- from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I
know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a
while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the
difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet
governance.
Anriette
On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property. Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.
Diego Rafael Canabarro <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com"><diegocanabarro@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week in
San
Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: "there's
no
commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related to the
conflict
presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still struggling with
that assertion.
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Roland Perry <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><roland@internetpolicyagency.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
the remit of your question):
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">sufficiently
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
Greetings,
Norbert
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The private sector has built extensive
networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which
their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]
expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have
unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">they
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but
merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">represents.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Diego R. Canabarro
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597">http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597</a>
--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Avri Doria
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>