<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Lee<br>
<br>
I think you suggestion of ecosystem is pretty useful for a more
expansive definition.<br>
<br>
But I must admit I do prefer working at different levels of
abstraction as it would represent the fractions/parts of the major
differences amongst views. The precision provided by KBs definition
is very important, and should not be diluted in any process - it is
the /nuts and bolts'/ hard stuff of the net. <br>
<br>
However, I take a different view of the dangers alluded to by KB
regarding an expansive definition, that it would limit innovation in
the future. First, I do not think much can be anticipated about the
dynamic phenomenon (aside from corporate enclosure), and hence these
are at best functional definitions. Second, the danger is probably
the other way around. A specific and narrow definition may achieve
precision at the price of relevance. <br>
<br>
It is plain that there are two major different worldviews that shape
our discussions (with nuance within each, etc). I do not think that
we should try to harmonise what is evidently something that both
strong and solid reasons justify either side. When we create two
streams, on one level it is about splitting civil society or the
caucus. On another level it is about civil society that has
differences, an which through an iterative or discursive process
brings this to bear on specific and particular policy issues. Now
this definition does not cover all aspects of differences, but it is
one we have had 'bun fights' over for the longest time, it is
recurrent, divisive and was not conducive to the wonderful tenor we
now seem to be developing on this list. If we differ at the level of
first principles (from which we derive different specific policy
proposals) then it will help us later on. Harmony should not be
confused with managing diversity, it is the goal or end point of
civil society. As such, I do hope we can maintain the differences so
that we are clear on where we differ and do not have to have
unnecessary arguments - first principle views are hard to reconcile
and become almost intractable on specific policy issues. And these
paragraphs are preamble type aspirations, functional 'definitions'
and have great room for discretion on both sides (they do need
further work) in particular concrete policy debates.<br>
<br>
I would strongly suggest that we ride this wave of 'diversity
management' in an open way. Since no one is effectively excluded,
and as it typical in these types of documents, because of their
softer nature, I do hope we can sharpen some of the fractures (which
are more method/focus than substance) so that each side can deepen
(which is what consensus building or confrontational approaches
weaken) the analysis.<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/04/20 01:28 AM, Lee W McKnight
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5D6C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hi,<br>
<br>
Got to run so just quick comments:<br>
<br>
Re:<br>
"The Internet is a communications medium that allows
communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal
in their potential to communicate with all other endpoints."<br>
<br>
Comment: I understand merit of embedding end to end principle
into definition; but am not sure it buys us that much at
soundbite level over basic technical terminology of a 'network
of networks.'
<br>
<br>
2nd comment: for the more expansive tightened version, maybe the
word <ecosystem> should be added after Internet, in 2nd
sentence. To make clear that it is not just the present net of
nets being spoken of.
<br>
<br>
And of course new species and mutations are implied to be
expected, in that phraseology, hence no limiting future
innovation.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF129928"><font size="2"
color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] on behalf of Riaz
K Tayob [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 19, 2013 6:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/
public good<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>Mawaki et al<br>
<br>
I think we have to operate at multiple levels of
abstraction, and let the matter have some of these dynamics
particularly in the exploratory stage; the broader social
'definition' (conception) vs the specific 'definition'
(conception).<br>
<br>
>From my perspective, not to speak for KB, I think there
is some value in having functional
understandings/approaches/worldviews/definitions for 'the
Internet'. Issues are technical. These can define the realm
of possibility - no VOIP layer then that feature is not
possible or rather constrained by the technical. So there IS
a set of technical elements as the KB definition poses,
which forms one small bubble. The is also the social
constructivist type (poor term, but it suffices) approaches
that sees a "regulatory" (formal, informal rules of the
'game', or institutional forms) which is another bubble. The
difficulty comes for both bubbles at the fringes/edges and
also where they overlap (overlap in the sense that Lessig
means, where the technical is regulatory - single root under
ICANN eg; bearing in mind the regulatory can also be
technical - legal rights to go in and fix or debug elements
of the hardware). Bubbles at the mid level of abstraction.<br>
<br>
Having a clear approach on what is included in the KB type
proposal, I think it would delineate more clearly what is
understood/felt to be in the technical realm (with its own
engineering particularities imposing limits on what is
possible. Reliance on this would make clear differences in
diagnosis and prescription. The value of the KB proposal is
that it sets feasible technical realms of possibility. With
this clear we can all benefit from this type of clarity,
recognising as I do the Lessig notion of the overlap. There
are technical elements that have governance implications
that point to specific advantages (from mid-level of
abstraction analysis) regarding small specialised competent
country registries, the subsidiarity and decentralisation
and integration that goes with it, that are functional to
the technical itself.<br>
<br>
So, WHERE RELEVANT, the one 'definition' presuppose the
other. It would go a long way to curing the interminable
debates on what we mean (and we oft mean different things,
and come from diverse worldviews) by Internet, the specific
technical (although not completely limited to that, if where
relevant we recognise the sets/bubbles) of the overall
conception of the internet governance space (including
multiple stakeholders) holistically. Just in terms of scope,
from the WSIS documents, we have a huge menu of issues, and
it simply means we DO need to operate at multiple levels of
abstraction. <br>
<br>
My suggestion is that both 'definitions' be worked in
parallel with some sort of framing so that discussion and
process wise we are more precise and clear.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/04/20 12:45 AM, Mawaki
Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Kerry,<br>
<br>
</div>
My understanding is that we have given up defining
the Internet per se (so we're not going to present
this as our definition of the Internet). Therefore
the focus is now on the purpose of this endeavor
(which again is not to define the Internet and which
I believe has abundantly been made clear by
Parminder) while avoiding any factual inaccuracy
--and maybe those two things should constitute good
enough measure of our acceptance. To that end, it's
meaningful that the statement starts with "We
recognise..." and not "Internet is..."<br>
<br>
</div>
Were we on the same page and am I just laboring the
point?<br>
<br>
</div>
Mawaki<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:24
PM, Kerry Brown <span dir="ltr">
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kerry@kdbsystems.com" target="_blank">kerry@kdbsystems.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
I've been watching this discussion develop with
interest. I've been quiet so far because I wanted to
see where it was going before speaking up. I think
the attempt to define the Internet as anything more
than a communications medium will be too limiting at
some future date. I would prefer something very
simple like:<br>
<br>
"The Internet is a communications medium that allows
communications between endpoints with all endpoints
being equal in their potential to communicate with
all other endpoints."<br>
<br>
This does not limit any future changes to the way
the communications happen or what is communicated.
Trying to include content and purpose may at some
point limit innovation. Defining the Internet this
way doesn't exclude us from discussing content,
commons vs. public good etc. It just ensures that
the medium itself is separate from what the medium
is used for. Both will change over time. If they are
linked by definition it may stifle innovation.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Kerry Brown<br>
<br>
</font></span><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>