<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">I am happy to add at the end<br>
<br>
Internet must also be promoted (or some better word) as a vehicle
(?) of free expression and for free flow of information, knowledge
and ideas. Subject to wordsmith-ing..<br>
<br>
However, at this point I think we need to perhaps put a stop to
further expanding the desirable characteristics of the Internet
and corresponding policy objectives. Otherwise it will become an
unending process. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 25 April 2013 10:15 AM,
Izumi AIZU wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKgdDuQ7vra4bFqnuA4EU3sGw=pHRdNxh5udgNvwyDN=0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges,
but now have a simple question.
<div><br>
<div style="">In the current version, there is no mention
about the "free flow of information</div>
<div style="">(and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of
speech/press/assembly.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">If there have already been good discussion about
these values most civil</div>
<div style="">society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But
if not, I think we should address</div>
<div style="">these in some way.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">izumi</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Folks, let us not sound like WCIT
deliberations... and be stuck on the order of
words or their esthetics, if not their politics.<br>
</div>
I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and
am not sure what positive difference the latest
change proposed by Parminder (on this specific
phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of
reading and maybe the comprehension.<br>
<br>
"through open, bottom-up, transparent,
participatory democratic
processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim]<br>
<br>
</div>
vs.<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">"through due democratic
processes, that are open and transparent, and
involve all stakeholders."</font> [Parminder]<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Or would the following satisfy all parties? "...
through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory
and due democratic
processes involving all stakeholders". If so please
(Parminder) go ahead and add.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Furthermore...<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="im">
<p><b>The design principles and policies that
constitute its governance ensure its stability,
functionality and security, and aim at
preserving and enhancing the global commons and
global public good character of the Internet the
combination of which has made previous
innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of
the growing danger for the Internet experience
to be reduced to closed or
</b><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></b></p>
<p style="margin-right:0.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-family:"Courier
New";color:rgb(31,73,125)">[Milton L
Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should
be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the
private good aspects of the Internet. As the
success of the internet rests on a creative
combination of both, why are we emphasizing
only one aspect of this?
</span></i></b></p>
<div>
<p><b>proprietary online spaces, we urge that the
preservation and enhancement of the Internet's
global commons and public good dimensions</b><b><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></b></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-right:0.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-family:"Courier
New";color:rgb(31,73,125)">[Milton L
Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not
specify them? Why not also recognize that we
should not interfere with the innovation and
creativity that has come from affording
entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment
and innovate with new private services?
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier
response to the above. You know Milton, as well as. I
do that once first movers settle in, they tend to
foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by
all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly.
Left to their own devices, things become naturally
skewed towards entrenched interests while raising
entry barriers and stifling the potential for
innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is
about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a
healthy balance between the two ends in order to
maintain and foster the creative combination you're
talking about.<br>
<br>
</div>
As to the question about determining the global commons
and global public good dimensions and for the sake of
simplicity, I suggest we maintain the same expression to
mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be
expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again
"global commons and global public good character".<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Re. the following proposition that has been dropped:
"While the design principles and policies that
constitute its governance should ensure its stability,
functionality and security, they must also aim at..."
the reason why I put this in earlier is that I remember
one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability,
functionality and security may be (some of) the salient
dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as
opposed to the internet itself in the technical sense.
That idea started generating some agreement and no
opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has
been dropped was that we were hesitant using a
prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative
present tense, to which someone objected that the
internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along
those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense and the
intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about
the principles guiding the *governance* of the internet
but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for
dropping that sentence should not hold any longer. If
you think otherwise and believe that proposition does
still not belong here, please do let us know. For now I
will put it back in because I think that's the logical
thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a
religion out of it. I have also added a variation of
the same as option in square brackets in the version
below (please not that ICANN always refers to their
mandate, particularly the clauses mentioning the need to
maintain stability and security, when making policy...
so that's a fact.) </div>
<div><br>
</div>
And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the
last proposition:<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana"><b>... we urge the preservation and
enhancement of the Internet's global commons and
public good dimensions."</b></font><br>
<b><i><span style="font-family:"Courier
New";color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></i></b>
<div>
<div>
<div>Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the
following two things: either who we are urging or at
least the framework where the preservation and
enhancement is being promoted or needs to take
place.<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana"><b>"We recognise the Internet
to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks
comprised of computing devices and processes,
and an emergent and emerging social reality. In
that sense, it is an intricate combination of
hardware, software, protocols, and human
intentionality enabling new kinds of social
interactions and transactions, brought together
by a common set of design principles. The design
principles and policies that constitute
Internet's governance should be derived through
</b></font><font face="Verdana"><b>open,
bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic
processes involving all stakeholders. Such
principles and policies must aim at</b></font><font
face="Verdana"><b> ensuring its stability,
functionality and security as well as [or: While
such </b></font><font face="Verdana"><b><font
face="Verdana"><b>principles and policies
strive to </b></font><font face="Verdana"><b>ensure
stability, functionality and security of the
Internet, they must also aim at] </b></font>preserving
and enhancing the global commons and global
public good character of the Internet, the
combination of 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 governance of the </b></font><font
face="Verdana"><b><font face="Verdana"><b>Internet</b></font>
promote the preservation and enhancement of the
Internet's global commons and public good
character."<span class="HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></b></font><span class="HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div>
<div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div>Mawaki<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</font></span>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="h5">On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28
PM, Garth Graham <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:garth.graham@telus.net"
target="_blank">garth.graham@telus.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert
Bollow wrote:<br>
<br>
> Governance of the epiphenomenon has
always been primarily through the
processes of parliamentary democracy
that shape the laws that govern<br>
> democratic societies;<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard
definition of public goods that assumes
the sovereignty of nation states in
regulation to be of “limited
practical-political value:”<br>
<br>
“The shifts between private and public
thus reflect greater shared concern for
the public domain among all the main
actors—the state, businesses, civil
society organizations, and households—and
for what others expect of them and how
their private activities affect others. A
wider arena, and probably a new era, of
publicness have emerged.” (1)<br>
<br>
She redefines the definition “to require
public goods to be inclusive (public in
consumption), based on participatory
decision-making (public in provision) and
offering a fair deal for all (public in
the distribution of benefits).”(2). She
sees that, in spite of their legislative
and coercive powers, more than nation
states are involved in addressing the
problems of undersupply and market
failure. She sees a need to develop, “a
more systematic approach to public policy
partnerships.”(3). In her terms, Internet
governance as a public good could be
viewed as emerging “against the wishes of
the state.” (4).<br>
<br>
“Goods often become private or public as a
result of deliberate policy choices. That
is why consideration should be given to
expanding the definition—to recognize that
in many if not most cases, goods exist not
in their original forms but as social
constructs, largely determined by policies
and other collective human actions.
According to this revised definition,
public goods are nonexclusive or, put
differently, de facto public in
consumption.” (5)<br>
<br>
“Public goods are not just market
failures, and they are not merely
state-produced goods. The public and
private domains exist on their own, beyond
states and markets. …. It can even be
argued that the state and the market are
part of the public domain: they are both
public goods.” (6).<br>
<br>
Personally, I find that phrase “public
policy partnerships,” to be a bit more
euphonious and helpful than the mouthful
“multi-stakeholderism."<br>
<br>
GG<br>
<br>
(1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza.
Advancing the Concept of Public Goods. In:
Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le
Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors.
Providing Global Public Goods: Managing
Globalization. Oxford University Press,
2002. 88-89. P78. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf"
target="_blank">http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf</a><br>
<br>
(2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the
Concept to the 21st Century. Paper
prepared for the Auditing Public Domains
Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian
Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001.
3.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf</a><br>
<br>
(3). Inge Kaul. 16<br>
<br>
(4). Inge Kaul. 9.<br>
<br>
(5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81.<br>
<br>
(6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="im">____________________________________________________________<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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">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>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
>> Izumi Aizu <<<br>
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>
Japan<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.anr.org"
target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>