<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 25 April 2013 12:07 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5178CF35.9020800@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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</font></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">add here, and for free association </font><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5178CF35.9020800@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Verdana">. 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>