<div dir="ltr"><div>Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in the first sentence, and in the last sentence, "global Internet *governance* agenda" plus slight improvements. The previous option 2 then reads:<br>
</div><div><br>We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks
comprised of computing devices and processes, but also an emergent and
emerging social
reality. In that sense, it is an intricate
combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality
enabling new kind of social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common
set of design principles, and stirred by policies established
through due democratic processes. While the design principles and
policies
that constitute its governance should ensure its stability,
functionality and security, they must also aim at
preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public
good character of the Internet [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 preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public
good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet governance agenda going forward.<br><br></div><div>[...*] to be added as you see appropriate.<br></div><div><br></div>mc<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to 'constrained by policies..., Adding a few changes I suggest the following version of the statement:<br><div><br>We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and emerging social
reality. In that sense, it is an intricate
combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality
and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common
set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due democratic processes. While the design principles and policies
that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at
preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public
good character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we urge that the global commons and global public
good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet agenda going forward.<br><br></div><div>Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...:<br><br>We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks
comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and
emerging social
reality. In that sense, it is an intricate
combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality
enabling new kind of social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common
set of design principles, and stirred by policies established
through due democratic processes. While the design principles and
policies
that constitute its governance should ensure its stability,
functionality and security, they must also aim at
preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public
good character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the
Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we
urge that the global commons and global public
good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet agenda going forward.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br><br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Mawaki<br></div>
</font></span><div><div class="h5"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
<br>
<div>On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM,
Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion
on as to where we want to go wrt to the issue put forth
by Parminder and Anriette, seeking a conceptually robust
basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the
internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently
proposed draft definition of the internet in a related
thread does not have to be presented as THE definition
of THE concept of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be
considered aside other possibly valid definitions. Time
will tell how pertinent that framing might be. Why
shouldn't we be able to do that, especially since we all
seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet
includes public as well as private aspects/components
(and, as Parminder notes, we're witnessing the onslaught
of some of its publicness which is of importance in our
view)?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one way to go
forward is to speak about "preserving and enhancing Internet's
commons and public good nature" rather than declaring that the
Internet is a commons and a public goods. This approach circumvents
some of the problems expressed in this discussion, and makes it more
aspirational (although based on some clearly established facts)
rather than precisely definitional. Accordingly, I have modified the
text as it last stood as follows.<br>
<br>
Text as it stood:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging
reality. As a global network of networks, it is an its intricate
combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality
and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common
set of design principles, and constrained by policies established
by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global
commons and a global public good. The design principles and
policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow
from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public
good.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Text as amended now:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging
reality. As a global network of networks, it is an its intricate
combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality
and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common
set of design principles, and constrained by policies established
by due democratic processes. The design principles and policies
that constitute its governance should principally aim at
preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public
goods character of the Internet.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
We may add, or not, the following, in order to make clearer the
nature of the problems that we are trying to address:<br>
<br>
There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the
non-excludablity of the Internet (through a new kind of '<a href="http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/enclosure+movement" target="_blank">enclosure
movement</a>'* of the digital space) and also its
non-rivalrousness (through excessive commodification), which should
be stemmed. <br>
<br>
(* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, and sought
to be undone by, contemporary occupy movements)<br>
<br>
(text suggestion ends)<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
Related to that and more generally (and building on
Jeanette's pertinent observation), why do we seem to
assume sometimes that government has the monopoly of
publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with
government advocates)? I would wish to have a
clarification once for all on this list about that. Who is
public? Who is the/a guadian of the public interest? Is it
only the government? Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS
also about the "public"? And yes, doesn't market
sometimes, maybe even often, improve the conditions and
circumstances of the public? (But is there any such thing
as pure market, without any help of public concern? I
would argue no, just as many governments, eg, in the US
and in Brazil, routinely show that government may be
willing to take private money and undermine itself.) <br>
<br>
So (in line with the idea that private and public are the
opposite ends of a spectrum) the question is: Under what
conditions, and maybe to what extent, do actors other than
governments contribute to the "public" (public good,
public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public
etc.)? Does anyone know of a conceptual framework that may
be pragmatically useful, and may be set as a reference on
the matter, in these debates of ours? That would be really
helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating
challengers into a sterile categorization government vs.
business, public vs. private. <br>
<br>
</div>
One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific
truths, we can look at history in different ways or at
different levels: Yes, history shows that there are many,
maybe overwhelming, instances where governments failed the
public interest and private business delivered more good to
the public. Does that mean private business has always
succeeded anytime, everywhere? What about private business
success vs. private business failure? Or isn't private
business failure possible? History may also show that there
are some conditions under which private business fails (and
fails gravely the community that has made them possible),
and other conditions under which they succeed both as
business in the narrow sense (re. bottom line) and as social
actors. The truth in these social matters is often temporal
and contextual by several other dimensions. Indeed, the fact
that certain market liberalization has proved to be so
successful in the late 20th century in the US and in Western
Europe, for example, may or may not be totally unrelated
with the fact that those markets were previously protected
during decades through monopoly or various protectionism
regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable)
facts of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be
misleading. We will have to be more nuanced on that spectrum
spanning from private to public, putting the facts in
perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the
sociohistorical context.<br>
<br>
</div>
Best,<br>
<br>
</div>
Mawaki <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM,
michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">M</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span></p>
<div><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Internet as a
commons/ public good</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<div style="border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
michael gurstein [<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>]
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.
</span></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>[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. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>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?</span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>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. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>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. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>Typically, sane
people adjust their beliefs to reality.
They do not try to re-label reality so
that it conforms to their ideology. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.</span></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>[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" target="_blank">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. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span>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. </span></i></b></p>
<p><b><i><span> </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>