<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Milton/ All<br>
<br>
As as been mentioned a few times earlier, we are not developing a
definition of the Internet. We are making an advocacy statement,
whereby there is an identified context - a recognition of a growing
problem in this regard, and a recommendation about the directions
that IG should therefore take.<br>
<br>
You say that the statement of the problem is not true. I believe
that most people here agree with the problem statement of
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal"><font
color="#000000">“<font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font
style="font-size: 13pt" size="3">the
growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to
closed or
proprietary online spaces.”</font></font></font></p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
--></style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">but, well, that can be tested out.<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Having stated the problem, the
proposed statement seeks that the "<span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">preservation
and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good
character". Advocacy statement are made in a particular context
(the recognition of a problem here) and have a particular intent
(further evolution of IG to move *more* in a particular
direction rather than the other).<br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">You
are proposing that we add to the statement the need to save and
promote its private (property) character as well. <br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Now, advocacy statements are not made
like this. For instance, most global civil society networks will
accept an advocacy statement like "we should promote the commons
character of knowledge". Almost all of them will scoff at the
demand to add to this something like "we do recognise the need to
privatise knowledge to provide enough incentives for its further
creation and so on", while admittedly, there is some truth in this
possible addition. But if you add this, it is not worth making a
statement at all. The purpose which was intended is not served. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Meanwhile, it is possible to make
another advocacy statement on the issue related to the private
(property) nature of the Internet, but for that you will need to
frame the problem which you have not yet done. Please make your
case how the private property nature of the Internet is threatened
and what do you think should be done about it. Lets discuss it
here, and if there seems to be good support go to a consensus
seeking process.<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Meanwhile, I propose that the
coordinators put the current text of the proposed statement to a
consensus seeking process. It will either get consensus or rough
consensus or it will not. and we can get onto to other things.
However, too much energy has been spent by a lot of people here to
just leave it like that. Moreover, the content of the statement is
close to the heart of many of us here and we have the right to
know what the caucus thinks of it. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I think the current text stands as
follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me if I am wrong)<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><b><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">"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 open and
transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all
stakeholders. While such principles and policies strive to
ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet,
they must also 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 proprietary online
spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote
the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global
commons and public good character. "</span></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
parminder<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 27 April 2013 07:40 PM,
Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8ZdJz2ia2MY98iaiCO+TKNdnDwUa=Hio+W=4ThvH5Y_g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I need reply to the questioning of some language
which I specifically put in the statement that is being objected
to. Hopefully, my last word on this issue.<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Milton L Mueller <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<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">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 class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is too easy to give the end user 2 or 3 options and
expect that they by themselves will come up with the
design of the, e.g., dozen of options that may be possible
and even feasible. The notion that the user, or more
precisely user choice, is a fully significant variable (by
lack of a better phrase) in the equation to assess the
realm of possibilities and feasible solutions is a fallacy
--and the large field of advocacy is that realm of
possibilities with, *possibly*, a pragmatic inflection
towards solutions that are perceived at a given point in
time as feasible. To make a comparison with something you
already stated yourself, it's like saying IETF
decision-making processes (or early IG processes in
general) are democratic as opposed to saying they are
democratic ONLY AMONG a restricted group (a technical
elite) while there is a much much larger group of people
who will be impacted by the outcomes but are not involved,
etc. That may be necessary but that is a kind of
"democracy" (if one absolutely wants to call it that) one
would need to qualify, to say the least. So I'm using here
the same mental process in your own sound reasoning on
that: Users can only chose between the 2 or 3 options
availed to them, and user choice only says something
really significant about those available options --and
nothing beyond that, particularly in a field where users
massively lack the capability to design new solutions by
themselves. This is where I personally deplore the fact
that "computer literacy" (or "computeracy" if you will),
including writing codes, is not yet a fixture that it must
become in all basic education programs across the world. I
like what techies do and produce, but it seems to me most
of them are lame when it comes to talking in an
understandable manner to non-techies and as a consequence,
I don't see them as the most qualified to speak on behalf
of users (no wonder user guides are most of the time
useless! or they seem to require a learning curve for
themselves before the user can even tackle what they are
supposed to be guided about). That's also why it is
crucial that the "computer language" becomes part of
everybody language. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Ok, that was a little bit of a digression but I wanted
to make that point because, as I was thinking about the
issue, I felt IMHO that it is relevant. Now, about the
"attack" on the closed and proprietary online spaces... I
think I read on this very a while ago posts related to the
fact that the internet experience of more and more users
--maybe the younger ones-- is becoming limited to
particular apps, notably those of social media such as
Facebook (FB). Or was that a nightmare of my own? If not,
and if there is indeed some notable trend toward such
state of affairs, and furthermore noting that I have
experienced more and more people sending FB inbox messages
that had nothing to do with my or their FB activities;
that SMTP and IMAP are more open and universal standards
than the non-standards underlining and enabling access
& access of the FB silo; and that once huge commercial
interests are entrenched they tend to have a ripple
effects on what may remain a possible choice in the future
or not (*); etc. I thought that clause in the draft
statement was justified. Now you may say we need to come
up with a research proposal and "scientifically" show that
there is a systematic evidence before we can make an
assertion for CS advocacy purposes, but I don't think that
has always been the standard.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>BTW, do you know that it now happens that FB tells
people that they are restricted from posting (inbox
messages for x number of days), just as they have been
doing for limiting friend requests? While one can
understand the reason for the latter, the reason for the
former escapes me. And no, it wasn't a person spamming
other people: so far he was mostly engaged in two-way
conversations and that restriction message prompted when
he tried to post an inbox message to a culinary page after
asking a question on the page's wall, which was not
attended to (and no record of offensive contents, etc.) I
personally consider this as a violation of an individual's
right to communicate. And if you thing that (on top of all
the practices that seem to claim for FB the status of the
online identity authority) should not be cause for
concern, you find me really surprised. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>(*) You may want to note that it is the
commercial/popular success of platforms such as FB that
has led their authentication and data sharing feature
(such as F-Connect) to defeat the then on-going efforts
from the rest of the industry to launch digital identity
technologies that give more capabilities to the users to
manage and possibly control their identity information and
related transactions. <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You can see above how what you call an "attack" can
relate to privacy, which I've been hearing a lot about,
including from myself :), just as I have been hearing a
lot about freedom of expression and censorship. Maybe we
have seen as much progress on those issues as we would
have liked and we would still like. But that is not reason
not to advocate on other issues.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Unless I stated something above that proves to be
inaccurate, which I might need to respond to if called
out, I wish to leave it at that --which should not prevent
you from acknowledging it in case the above has helped in
any way clarify some arguments for you :) <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Mawaki<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">--MM</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"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com"
target="_blank">izumiaizu@gmail.com</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com"
target="_blank">izumiaizu@gmail.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Izumi AIZU<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance; Mawaki Chango<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Milton L Mueller; Parminder</span></p>
<div class="im"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Internet as a
commons/ public good</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi, I also came late to this
round of exchanges, but now have a simple
question.</p>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the current
version, there is no mention about the
"free flow of information</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(and knowledge and/or
ideas) nor freedom of
speech/press/assembly.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there have already
been good discussion about these values
most civil</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">society proponents
subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I
think we should address</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">these in some way.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">izumi</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com"
target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Folks, let
us not sound like WCIT
deliberations... and be stuck
on the order of words or their
esthetics, if not their
politics.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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]</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">vs.<br>
<br>
<span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">"through
due democratic processes, that
are open and transparent, and
involve all stakeholders."</span>
[Parminder]</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore...</p>
</div>
<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></p>
<p style="margin-right:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">[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></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-right:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1f497d">[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>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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".</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.)
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">And lastly, I feel
there's something too vague about the
last proposition:<br>
<br>
<b><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">...
we urge the preservation and
enhancement of the Internet's global
commons and public good dimensions."</span></b><br>
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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>
<b><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">"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 open, bottom-up,
transparent, participatory
democratic processes involving
all stakeholders. Such
principles and policies must
aim at ensuring its stability,
functionality and security as
well as [or: While such
principles and policies strive
to ensure stability,
functionality and security of
the Internet, they must also
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
proprietary online spaces, we
urge that the governance of
the Internet promote the
preservation and enhancement
of the Internet's global
commons and public good
character."</span></b></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#888888">Mawaki</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="color:#888888"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="color:#888888"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed,
Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM,
Garth Graham <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:garth.graham@telus.net"
target="_blank">garth.graham@telus.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in
0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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>
</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">____________________________________________________________<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></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <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></p>
</div>
</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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>