<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Agree fully Izumi.<br>
<br>
The issue is simple, we can debate and discuss and sharpen our ideas
here. <br>
<br>
If necessary 'factions' can be formed around particular ideas,
something Third Worldists ought to have done to deal with the single
rooters. Perhaps these different positions will allow groups within
IGC to deepen their positions, and use it as a platform for
consensus positions, but from a base that is at least well
interrogated by the 'other side' so to speak.<br>
<br>
This will perhaps deepen the use of IGC for broadening, while at the
same time allowing like minded people to deepen their analysis and
views.<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/04/26 07:01 AM, Izumi AIZU
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+YNoKihXkzTZa_9uGVTvOsZou4EfqW_kWw+UZGVqMx+easnRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Defining what the Internet is may be a good starting
point, but may not be the final product.
<div><br>
<div>However, reaching one consensus for what the Internet ought
to be may not be so easily reachable as we see very diverse
views even among IGC members if not within CS at WSIS process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Still, I think trying to articulate what we want it to
be and take notes to different views is a valuable exercise
and so far so good or at least I am learning a lot.<span></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
Let's not to be too pessimistic!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Izumi <br>
<br>
2013年4月25日木曜日 Milton L Mueller <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">Is this an attempt to
“define what the internet is” or is it an attempt to
force the internet into someone’s pre-conceived
ideological mold as a ‘public good’? If it is the
former, it might have some value for the WGEC. If
the latter, it should be called off.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'ca@cafonso.ca');" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Milton L Mueller; Izumi AIZU;
governance<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Internet as a
commons/ public good</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>This discussion thread reminds me of the Wgig
effort to arrive at a "operational" definition of
the Internet. I would not call it off as it
provides plenty of arguments to help us in the
upcoming WGEC. I have a feeling that a good
summary of these arguments will serve as a good
dos-and-donts synthesis for the WG.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>frt rgds</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>--c.a.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span>------------</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p>C. A. Afonso</p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Milton L Mueller <<a moz-do-not-send="true">mueller@syr.edu</a>>
<br>
Date: 25/04/2013 09:29 (GMT-03:00) <br>
To: Izumi AIZU <<a moz-do-not-send="true">iza@anr.org</a>>,governance
<<a moz-do-not-send="true">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>
<br>
Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/
public good <br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">Izumi’s comment
clinches my feeling that this whole effort is
misdirected and should be called off. First,
there is obviously nothing near consensus on
this; it is yet another attempt by one faction
to impose their own peculiar ideological
fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring more
important and consensual values.
</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">There is no
well-defined problem that this statement
addresses. There is a vague reference to “the
growing danger for the Internet experience to be
reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.”
I challenge the truth of this assertion. I think
it’s just false. I see no such trend, no such
danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence
of a “growing” trend, and show how it
constitutes something systemic and something
that end users really don’t want.
</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">Note that there IS a
massive amount of evidence of a growing trend
toward content regulation and censorship in many
countries. But somehow, we don’t seem interested
in addressing that. There is a growing danger of
securitization. We don’t address that. By the
way, how does this attack on closed online
spaces relate to the agenda of privacy
advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off
some of the information shared on the internet
(although this is not an agenda I share). No one
seems to have given that problem a moment’s
thought.
</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">Finally, those who have
chosen to prioritize “public good” concepts over
everything else have shown a clear
misunderstanding of the concept of public goods.
They have inaccurately characterized the
internet as a whole as a public good when it has
clear that many features of it are private goods
and that much of the value we associate with the
internet comes from allowing private actors to
create and maintain private spaces within the
global internet. Any statement that fails to
recognize this is both factually inaccurate and
unlikely to get widespread support.
</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">I hope IGC does not
waste further time on this statement, and be
forewarned that if it does I will not allow
anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society
position. </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">--MM</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Izumi Aizu - sent from Mobile<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>