<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 12:43 AM,
Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8UTZLNYggn99peOzEocztn0FJhfBf9biNt5tDdkZVQqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Mawaki<br>
<br>
Earlier the phrase was just 'due democratic processes' to which Ian
said ' it looked too much like what governments do'. To me
democratic processes is not something governments do, they are just
democratic processes, that is all. But I think Ian was making
explicit a historical connection and assumption that he had in him
mind, and presumes others have to. Similarly, the above text,
especially the bottom-up part of it appears to me to point to
directly and somewhat exclusively to ICANN associated processes.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8UTZLNYggn99peOzEocztn0FJhfBf9biNt5tDdkZVQqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
Furthermore...<br>
</div>
<div>
<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 class="im">
<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>
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."<br>
</b></font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Mawaki<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">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>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">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>
____________________________________________________________<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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>