<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.95pt;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></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" style="margin-left:5.25pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You say that the statement of the problem is not true. I believe that most people here agree with the problem statement of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">“<span style="font-size:13.0pt">the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] If most people agree, they should be able to provide examples. Yet, I am still waiting for specific examples.
Examples of both what specifically is meant by “reduction to closed or proprietary online spaces”, and evidence of the “growth” of this problem.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">So far, the only concrete reference I have seen comes from Mawaki, and it is a good example of why I am resisting this statement.
Mawaki claimed “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).” Now, I am not a Facebook member and do not particularly like that type
of online community. But I would quibble with the definition of Facebook as “closed,” in that joining is free and pretty much open to anyone, and using it does not prevent anyone from accessing anything else on the internet. FB does not alter or in any way
enclose the Internet protocols or standards. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">If you don’t like FB because people spending time on it are not looking at other things on the internet, the complaint seems churlish.
Would one then call the IGC governance list a closed space? If you join you only see messages from a few hundred <cough> brilliant minds debating internet governance, you do not get exposed to, say, an email list of zoologists who specialize in zebras or Hello
Kitty fans. By enclosing ourselves in this lovely space are we an example of this terrible phenomenon? Well, we could do something about that – and shut down the list.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Or are we just complaining about young people wrapping themselves up in Facebook, like 1960s parents complaining that their kids
watch too much television? Are we telling those folks that we know better than they do how they should spend their online time?
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">What, exactly, is the political point we are making? What is the policy that is advocated? Are we going to force people to leave
FB? Ban private social media? Nationalize FB (as one academic who should know better has suggested)? Oh by the way, which national government will be the one to nationalize it? After we nationalize it, how do we know that the policies will be better? I mean,
if it’s run by a government, what could possibly go wrong? <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Are we going to start a new social media platform? What if no one comes? What if they like FB better? Will we then complain, as Mawaki
seemed to do, that they really don’t know what’s good for themselves and perhaps we should make the choice for them?
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><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.
</span>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. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Thank you for the frank acknowledgement of the partisan and polarized nature of this statement! So the purpose
is to rally global civil society networks who get excited at the “commons character of knowledge” and to alienate and exclude those who do not. You are saying that we are not interested in anyone with a more nuanced understanding of the Internet, and we are
not interested in advocacy that educates the public about the unique combination of public and private goods on the internet. We just want to throw some red meat to the people with a set ideology. Is that it?
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">How could we possibly arrive at a consensus statement if that is the way you want to do things? You are taking the current political
divisions as a given and trying to exploit them, rather than defining a new politics of the internet and building something new.
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Look, I am sure we can reach agreement if we are trying to arrive at an accurate and constructive understanding of public and private
goods on the internet, and if we are trying to advocate policies that promote that balance and have broad support in IGC.
<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>