<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Avri<br>
<br>
Thanks for the detailed analysis. A few points (even as I
understand that fears are irrational and cant be rationally argued
against).<br>
<br>
Yes, closed and proprietary spaces could be a lot of things,
among those, a few that you list below (although not all, but that
is not important for the sake of this argument). <br>
<br>
However, you must notice that the statement does not say, 'we are
against closed and proprietary spaces on the Internet' which
perhaps you 'seem' to suggest it says. The statement says we fear
"the growing danger for the Internet experience to be *reduced to*
(emphasis added) closed or proprietary online spaces" <br>
<br>
Now, you may not agree that there is any such growing danger, as
Milton refuses to agree.... However to clear any
misunderstandings, in case there be any, the statement in no way
threatens revenue models for 4 G nor it intends to be push for NY
to open its online version to everyone. (In fact, inter alia,
Mawaki in his last email to Milton gave a good indication of what
kind of issues are implicated and sought to be addressed by the
statement)<br>
<br>
You say that you fear that someone may say something like, and I
quote<br>
</font>
<pre class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.5cm"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">"The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..."</font></font></pre>
<font face="Verdana">Now, unless one just decides to say whatever he
or she wishes, this kind of representation of the statement is
simply not possible, because the statement nowhere says "we are
against proprietary online spaces". </font><br>
<font face="Verdana">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"> But as I said, fears are irrational,
and if you have the fears you have them. <br>
</p>
<font face="Verdana">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
PRE.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback", monospace }
PRE.ctl { font-family: "Lohit Hindi", monospace }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
On the other hand, just to illustrate my point; someone may
develop fears about, say, an IGC advocacy statement promoting
freedom of expression on the Internet citing a hundred
possibilities of, well, how someone may claim he or she is
entitled to this or that because IGC has clearly and firmly stated
that it is for freedom of expression... Fears being irrational
and not subject to rationality, such a thing I can see is entirely
possible.<br>
<br>
Thanks however for going into so much detail on why you do not
support this statement. <br>
<br>
And thanks for saying that it is indeed a very good aspirational
statement. That is what we largely wanted it to be (using I think
Anriette's words). Civil society lives by its aspirations, some of
them sometimes a bit too high, but that is our staple. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:D92F9949-2453-4194-8F4A-12B594B664AE@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I swore I was going to stay out of this particular substantive issue.*
But as usual I am breaking another promise to myself.
Sometimes, I really can't stand the irresponsibility of a person who can't even keep her commitments to herself.
I should be ashamed.
On 27 Apr 2013, at 12:29, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think the current text stands as follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me if I am wrong)
"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 u
rge that
the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. "
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">In any case, in terms of this.
I actually think it is a very good aspirational statement.
To some extent I can say it gives me the warm and fuzzies.
It touches on some of my most emotional political aspirations.
But I could _not_ support it as either
- a definition (which is what I thought the exercise had been about) or
- an IGC's advocacy statement.
(Notice I will avoid, without comment, discussing the issue of whether the IGC is a representative of Civil society and has legitimacy as the voice of Civil society on Internet governance issues. I will not, therefore, discuss the statement as Civil Society aspirations)
As an advocacy statement, which I did not know we were working on, i see no strategy discussed in this. What does this statement claim we want done? What are we planning to advocate?
And that is where my problem with this aspirational statement really comes in.
Like the working definition of Internet governance this is wonderfully ambiguous.
But the devils are in the definitions of the things referenced.
For example, "closed or proprietary online spaces" could mean:
1. The single root controlled by a single technology.
2. That certain names within that single root are so precious (the refer to sacred objects, national sovereignty or cultural sensistivity) they must be protected as part of the commons
3. That the environment created by FB, Google or Linkedin (3 i use) isn't a private space to be used in whatever way the voluntary participants allow (aka voting with their fingers)
4. That one has to pay to gain access to a 4g network
5. That the NYTimes on line should be available free to anyone who wishes
6. That Circleid makes me log on to comment in its web site
7. That all repositories of academic article produced with the assistance of public moneys aren't open
8. ....
i agree with some of these, to some extent, but not all to every extent.
And I read that as an indication we should be working on opening new spaces.
And supporting the open spaces that are out there.
Not controlling old ones.
There are similar question sets for almost every phrase in this wonderful aspirational document.
Which of these specific issues do we need action on?
My fear* is that if we agree to this statement, for every cause of everyone with an agenda in the IGC, and I expect most of us have an agenda though some may not, they will be able to point to the aspirations on which the IGC has agreed and say:
"But you agreed that this was our advocacy goal!"
Hell, I can even see an argument-opportunist like myself doing so.
Or would here keynote talks where some one sys:
"The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..."
I gott to admit, I can't see myself saying this one, but I can imagine others who might.
Nope, I could not agree to this advocacy statement.
And there is no tweaking of the words that could convince me to agree as the problem is not in the words but the baggage.
avri
*
substantive issue - aka rat's nest
fear -- did anyone see the marvelous cartoon on kinds of fear, I can find it, but it is out there)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>