<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">I agree with Jeanette that the publicness and
privateness of a good is a matter of degrees. It not only depends,
as she says, on the context, but also on the ideology of the
beholder. Ideology is a political fact, despite Milton's
desperate attempts to sepetar scientific social 'facts' from
matters of political ideology and then going right deep into
ideology to defend the 'facts' formulated by him. (BTW I also know
that Milton holds it as a 'fact' that social and economic rights
are actually not rights but matters of policy and only civil and
political rights are in 'fact' rights. So much so for 'facts'
versus ideology.) Human rights themself represent an ideology.
There is no factual basis for them although I am happy to be
proved wrong. <br>
<br>
The fact of the relativeness of the public good character of the
communication infrastructure can be judged from how its
public-good-ness is right now sought to be greatly diminished if
not abolished by telcos in the US by bringing in laws in state
after state for complete deregulation of the communication
infrastructure. This is the kind of real policy implications that
defining Internet as a commons and a public good or not entails.
And that is a political position to take - based on some facts,
but still a political position. Based on the same set of facts
someone else - Milton and AT & T for instance, may take
exactly the opposite position. <br>
<br>
Therefore, while it certainly need a good and a continued
discussion here, it is also a matter of political ideology that
the caucus may seek to either profess or not. I remember at least
2-3 occasions in the last few years that this group had a long
discussion on the public goods character of the Internet. (once
after Pablo Accuosto did a paper </font><font face="Verdana"> for
APC </font><font face="Verdana">on Internet as a public good.) As
Anriette says for herself, indeed seeking to consider the Internet
as a commons/ public good is basically aspirational for all those
who so seek. We seek to reduce the excludability from basic
Internet functionalities and its rivalrous-ness, both of which are
increasingly being enhanced. Such enhancement of excludability
and rivalrousness of Internet's functionality is taking place
right now - encroachment on universal service obligations, laws in
the US against local authorities providing public wifi networks,
and net neutrality are some examples....</font><font
face="Verdana"> Even standards are getting privatised, as means to
draw perpetual rent. All this is the biggest damage being done to
the Internet as we wish to envisage it.</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
Consequently, if the caucus has to take a stand in these matters,
but presenting a foundational principle of treating the Internet
as a commons and a public good, that should inform Internet policy
making, the time to do it is now. It cannot be infinitely
postponed. Perhaps over the last one decade we have already
postponed it beyond its expiry date. Anyway, currently, there are
some international processes like the WTPF and the WG on Enhanced
Cooperation (on Internet related public policies) which may be the
right place to contribute any foundational principle for Internet
related public policy. OECD has contributed some 'Principles for
Internet Policy Making' whose most distinctive feature is to
enhance creation od private property on the Internet and its over
zealous protection including through use of means that are
patently inappropriate per classical jurisprudence (through use of
private intermediaries). Now if civil society has to contribute
any principle(s) for Internet policy making that seeks to
safeguard and promote the commons and public goods nature of the
Internet, it will be need to be done now. We can debate it here
for a few days, but cant debate it endlessly. Finally, either we
do it or we dont. It is a matter of political conviction as much
of finding the right facts, Sufficient effort although should
certainly be made to get the facts right, for, as Anriette says,
making our definition/ principle robust enough. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 17 April 2013 05:28 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:326C1C7B-53D4-4061-8433-2A56088B0377@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">+1 for substantive conversations
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org"><anriette@apc.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all
I am with Jeanette here... these debates are good to have precisely
because distinctions between different types of goods are sometimes
blurred and old definitions are challenged by new, and complex 'things'
like the internet .
I am quite aware of that many people feel that the idea of the internet
is a public good is 'wrong'. I respect these views, which is why I think
we need to explore this debate further. My perspective is also one that
is aspirational... so, perhaps the internet is not currently defined as
as a public good... but why can it not be defined as such in the future?
What I think we are ultimately looking for is a definition that can be
used to frame legal, regulatory and policy decisions... so it does have
to be robust - so the debate now is essential.
Common pool resources is a very interesting and helpful concept to add
to this discussion. But do look at Inge Kaul's article, Milton (the link
was sent by Michael Gurstein). It is really interesting. It would be
good to hear what you think of it.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf">http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf</a>
Anriette
On 16/04/2013 17:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Milton,
websites are rival in consumption? How so.
If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction
between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and
private goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can
change depending on circumstances. It is not just the good itself but
also its context that determines a good's position on the
public/private range. Thus, to some degree people can shape the
publicness or privateness of a given good. This is why I think such
debates are good to have.
jeanette
Am 16.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Milton L Mueller:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder:
Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate
notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public
good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago.
If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this.
The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can
accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet
services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in
consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private
goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand
the definition of public goods and commons and the economic
characteristics of these resources or you don’t.
Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as
common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of
domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but
may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what
works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is.
It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are
commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim
is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and
the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make
it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous
policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One
should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political
economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around.
*From:*governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] *On Behalf Of *parminder
*Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM
*To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
*Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was,
Conflicts in Internet Governance
Anriette/ All
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,
I propose that the caucus adopts this as a/ the basic principle for
IGC's political/ advocacy work.
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....
"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."
I propose small modifications to it
"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."
So what I propose for this caucus to adopt is as follows
"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."
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...
parminder
On Sunday 14 April 2013 10:28 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
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:
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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com"><mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com></a> wrote:
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> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><mailto:nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:
Roland Perry<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><roland@internetpolicyagency.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com></a> wrote:
One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I
hope this is within
the remit of your question):
It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not
been
sufficiently
conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing
this out!
Greetings,
Norbert
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
they
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
represents.
____________________________________________________________
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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><mailto: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>
--
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)
--
Avri Doria
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>