<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> michael gurstein [<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>] </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real scientific basis for your claim. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change things for the better?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least accessible internet sectors. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102</a> is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, because it worked. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p></div></div></body></html>