<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Mawaki, good elaboration.</p>
<p>Come to think, why is there no Global government? </p>
<p>Whose interest was it during the years of slavery? Which has re-surfaced in more systematic approaches.<br></p>
<p>Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA</p>
<p>"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively."</p>
<p>+234 8027510179</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 4, 2013 7:44 PM, "Mawaki Chango" <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Of the intertwining of thought and the geographies of economy...<br><br>For
whatever it's worth, pre-Socratic Greek thinkers already saw a
connection between geography and philosophy, notably across schools in
the islands of the North-Eastern Mediterranean sea. With a globalized
and further globalizing economy plus several layers of geo-strategic
calculus, natural geography has long become less relevant in terms of
providing any significant independent variables for shaping our thinking
(in other words, in terms of determining the way we think and the
outcome of our thinking.) As the other guy said: It's the economy,
stupid! So now, it is not the natural geography but the economic
geography that matters! And with economic geography (and power) comes
political geography, too (in which "region(s)" Israel or New Zealand
belong, again?) Well, power is everywhere, even within CS, isn't it?<br></div><br>The
most intriguing thing for people outside the US is
that the people who seem to be most intent and relentless with every
possible argument to
shoot down the state (or disable the state altogether) are
those very people whose state works the most effectively on their
behalf particularly on the international stage, that is, on behalf of
them citizens either directly or through the
promotion of and support to their private corporations. Good for them!
But I'd hope things might work better in forging shared interests and
agreements if we could start from a mutual and deep understanding as to
why such is the case in some parts of the world, particularly the US,
and why such is NOT the case elsewhere.<br><br>Does anyone here think
they fully understand why a certain group of countries lean toward
certain positions, and others the opposite direction? Might they have
some legitimate reasons for that, including self-interest --whatever
that means-- or is someone just plain stupid? If self-interest, is
someone's self-interest more legitimate than others' and how does one
determine that? Does anyone even seek to understand why the split? Why
citizenry in some countries do believe they need the state, and that the
state might even be their best chance to representation on the
international stage? Does anyone really care to bridge the gap? Or are
we just extending the war by all means but lethal weapons? After all,
that is historically a huge achievement: civilization or the replacement
of physical violence by language. Isn't that enough? <br><br></div></div>We
hear about the rule of the victor after a war (I believe there's even a
standard phrase for that, which I'm forgetting.) But what happens
before the war, how does power play out in time of peace? Ideally, the
most powerful must be right! Yeah, things would work more smoothly if we
all can just admit the self-evidence of the superiority of the
self-interest of the most powerful (since no one can really demonstrate
whose self-interest is more legitimate than others'). And if the least
powerful want to prevent or deny them the right to be right, tension
becomes high, very high, and transaction costs follow the same direction
especially for those least powerful. However, I won't go as far as to
say the most powerful will wage a war just to be right, just so that victorious they can rule the day after the war. But who am I to know how
the most powerful think about such important things as war and peace, and all the power play in between?<br><br>So one thing I seem to agree with MM on is that economy is of prime
importance and determines everything else -- proof is that, along with its
geographical variability, it is so deep-seated in our brains that it determines
our way of thinking. Right? Truth be told, I only doubt about the might
of the economy and economic motivations when I am visiting my mom's
village... anyway, I've always suspected those people to be out of time,
so don't mind them, an economic anomaly history shall rid us of.<br>
<br></div>mawaki</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
<br>
<div>On Monday 29 April 2013 11:33 PM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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></div>
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><span><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<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"><u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></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."<u></u><u></u></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? <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></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?"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a 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 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>