<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 Monday 29 April 2013 11:33 PM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<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;}
/* 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.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I can't say
if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile
Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis
here in Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to
Facebook than to other social networking websites. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">OK,
so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a
classic nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated
in the context of network neutrality. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the "public goods" character of the
internet or with "the commons." You do not get any
traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If
you want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net
neutrality statement, at least people will know what you
are talking about.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Net neutrality (NN) is a sub issue of the larger commons/ public
good framing. Well, now that you tell me that we should make a NN
statement so that people at least know what we are taking about, I
cant but take you to a few months back when we tried to make an NN
statement; as a workshop proposal to the IGF. Then some IGC-ians,
including some of those who now also oppose a common/ public goods
statement, opposed the NN statement using the same argument, that NN
is a term without a clear enough meaning !? Never mind that a few
countries have NN legislations. Consequently, IGC could not use the
term NN in its workshop proposal. <br>
<br>
Now, that tells us two things.<br>
<br>
One, *beyond a point*, which concept is clear and meaningful and
which not is a specific political preference. (For instance, many of
those who find NN and Internet's commons/ public goods character as
unclear or meaningless formulations never hesitate to use
multistakeholder-ism or MSism in their statements. Now I know for
sure that many times more people - at least outside the IGC - are
clearer about what NN or commons/ public goods character of the
Internet means than they are about what does MSism really mean.)<br>
<br>
Second, it is perhaps now established that this group is clearly
unable to articulate any advocacy view which has political economy
implications, or touches positive rights . It would remain confined
to procedural issues, mainly promoting MSism, which is a code word
for removing governments from wherever they can conceivably be
removed from. (This connects to larger anti-political trends which I
wont go into here.) At the most, it can support a statement on
freedom of expression, which, in absence of articulation of at least
the connected communication rights framework, look suspiciously
close to US's hegemonic 'internet freedom' agenda. <br>
<br>
This is very disappointing, and would IMHO compromise the legitimacy
of IGC as a premier global civil society group. If people have to go
elsewhere to talk about and articulate political economy issues with
respect to the global Internet and its governance, it is not a good
thing. For one, there seems to be no elsewhere to go right now. That
is a gap which may need to be filled. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Also,
devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a
gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the
Internet. For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a
Bitcoin client on it - but I can't, because Apple decided I
can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent app on my PS3, but
I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that you
have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which
although becoming dated now gives many other examples.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Again,
this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform
operator having the authority to internalize the
externalities of the internet by making decisions about
which apps/services can be excluded and which cannot.
There are two sides to that debate. The platform operators
argue that they should have editorial discretion; some
consumer groups actually _<i>want</i>_ platform operators
to make those decisions; many economists and regulators
feel that competition among platform operators is enough
to keep abuses in check. There are various examples of
where public pressure has ended some arbitrary incidents
of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either
of those sides, it is to point out that that debate has
little to do with the "public goods" character of the
internet. Nor do I see what we contribute to that debate
with a vague invocation of "the commons."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">An
app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons"
would mean what, exactly? That it is run by the
government/public sector? Or that there was no management
at all, anyone could put anything on it, including
malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and
no one would have any right to remove it, even if
thousands of consumers complain about it? But if there is
selection, then who decides what is selected and under
what criteria? The government? Think that'll be better?
Which government? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
sum, the policy prescription implied by such
characterization is not clear. This is still a meaningless
statement. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Also,
we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing
problem. 6 years ago, when I first started studying mobile
network neutrality, mobile walled gardens were the NORM.
Most mobile operators confined you to a restricted set of
special services they had deals with. The advent of the
iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile
internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is
the evidence of a "growing trend?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>