<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Milton<br>
<br>
You basically do not agree with the proposition I advanced that
the Internet is getting more and more centralised and to that
extent less people centric, and you consider the two examples I
gave in this regard as 'not encouraging'. Whereby, I understand it
to mean that your view is that the Internet keeps getting more and
more decentralised, and thus more and more people-centric, or at
least there is no proof to the contrary. Am I right in making such
a deduction?<br>
<br>
I stand by my examples as proving my proposition, and I can cite a
lot of papers, even books, and others sources, even initiatives
aiming at 're-decentralising the Internet' but I dont think that
is going to matter to you. Meanwhile, the proposition of
increasing concentration of power on and due to the Internet,
unless deliberate interventions to the contrary are employed, is
so basic to the work that my organisation and also our wider
networks undertake that I am not sure where I can take this
argument any further with you. It is like saying that
globalisation causes no economic injustices, which is of course
something that you might as well believe. The only thing I can
say, especially since you frequently employ this allegation, is
that such a viewpoint is no less ideological than one which claims
that globalisation does cause economic injustices. <br>
<br>
In any case, the evidences that you provide to show that all is
well with the Internet (at least on the economic and social
rights/ justice side) are very interesting. Most of your case
rests on a single pillar, that of user choice - since a lot of
people are using the Internet, and increasingly so, it must be
providing them value, and that seals the argument for you.<br>
<br>
This is a typically erroneous way of looking at any technology's
impact on the society, especially such a pervasively general
purpose, and social, one as the new ICTs. Any new technology
paradigm provides an immediate cascade of useful possibilities,
and value propositions. That much is but obvious. However a claim
that this 'fact' by itself proves the currently dominant
trajectory and manner of technology evolution as the best one may
not hold water. Other trajectories could yield more benefit,
overall, and/ or in the distributional aspect. I am sure that you
are not such a techno- deterministic so as to believe that there
is indeed only one possible path, that which we witness around us
or have witnessed. As the World Social Forum ( i can already see
the derision on your face :) ) says 'Another World is Possible'.
We think that another path for techno-social evolution of the
Internet and associated social phenomena is possible. As you
perhaps know, there is a plan to hold an Internet Social Forum
next year, with the slogan 'Another Internet is Possible'.
(Meanwhile, do see the recent posting by Lee on 'platform
cooperativism' for an example of charting a ;different path'
forward.)<br>
<br>
I am sure you do not have time for all this 'ideological stuff'.
But you certainly have time to declare that the Internet is
neoliberal, and this new communication paradigm would or needs to
follow none of the old-world soft stuff of public, community or
otherwise collectivist approaches that do often get applied to
communication and media systems . And all this belief of yours is
some kind of a given technical fact, and nothing of an ideology!<br>
<br>
Milton, user choices cannot determine everything and dont prove
much. Users make choices within the constrained structures that
they are subject to, and these structures themselves may not be
easily mutable or influenced by simple series of consumer choices.
Such facts are well known in sociological theory, and it is just
an ideologically motivated stream of economic thought that
over-relies on 'user choice' to 'prove' that what it in fact
ideologically holds as a prior belief. <br>
<br>
I am sure that you can and will also use your logic of, to quote,
"</font>choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and
growing numbers"
<font face="Verdana"> to prove that people do not care about a net
neutral Internet, neither do they value their privacy. <br>
<br>
You are so taken by a narrow economic ideology that you seem to
miss every political nuance... When I showed my disappointment
that the Internet has continued to become more closed even under
the watch of IGF, I of course took the IGF as a (hopefully)
participatory sphere for public influence on Internet policies,
but you chose to read it as I trying to put the Internet under a "</font>centralized
system under any single authority's "watch."
<font face="Verdana"><br>
<br>
This quite eloquently shows how different our modes of political
thought and expression are, which is what makes it so much
difficult for us to carry on a conversation here; and,
incidentally, not my stupidity or ignorance which you miss no
opportunity to point to. (yes, I know what a p2p technology is. I
spoke of email as p2p as you would speak of a consumer to consumer
model as against consumer to business.) <br>
<br>
Lastly, I am quite surprised at how narrowly you construct the
field of Internet governance when you say that the Volkswagen and
John Deere cases that I referred to while being interesting have
nothing to do with IG... Dont you see that Volkswagen's software
cheating is only a step away from algorithm cheating and its
possible devastating social impact; and what does the argument of
'software with mechanical parts' mean in the age of Internet of
Things. I take the field of Internet governance to widely sweep
across the area of governance of the digital realm, and especially
today there is not much difference between a stand alone digital
artefact and a networked one, I mean there is a clear growing
convergence there. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 26 October 2015 02:02 AM,
Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DM3PR07MB226581D695B0F3AE6BF03B25A1240@DM3PR07MB2265.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred and
development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have a more
people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so, what are the
reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be done, especially
from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
No.
Can you provide me with a metric of "people-centeredness"? One that is meaningful to all and not a purely ideological construct? The examples you gave below were not encouraging.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today than it
was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the Internet today,
which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough technical advance, but for
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
So the people who are adopting and using the Internet don't count in your calculation. Interesting. The choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing numbers, does not mean that they see value in this in your book. What then does it mean?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the present purpose lets keep the focus on its design; is it more people-centric
today than it was 10 years ago
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I have no idea what you mean by the 'design' of the Internet. If you are not talking about techno-management, and you are not talking about the design of the standards and protocols, from your examples below it sounds like you are talking about the economic organization or business models of service providers who run "over the top."
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sigh. Email as P2P. Can someone other than me explain what's wrong with this assertion to P? I don't have time.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public standards written
by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby there were no lock-ins
and every email service could interact with all others based on these public
protocols.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Every email service can still interact with all others, and so can all the platforms.
I don't think you have a very accurate recollection or a very deep understanding of the compatibility issues here. What was your email client in 2005? Or 1995 for that matter? Mine was MS Outlook in 2005 and Netscape's browser in 1995. Have you tried moving your stored emails from either client to any other one? It was more difficult in 1995 than in 2005, and more difficult in 2005 than now. True, email standards interconnect all different clients then as now but there were various lock-in mechanisms. There is always a dynamic between competition, innovation and standardization, between open and proprietary, and you haven't made much of a case that we are tilting more one way than the other.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Compare that with a Facebook or a Twitter and you will easily see
what I am driving at.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sorry, I still don't see what you are driving at. I can see anyone's Tweet on the web, they can email me a link to it. Facebook seems to be a bit more closed off, (I am not a Facebook user (yeah, we do exist), so I am less sure of how users allow or do not allow access to their pages), but there were equivalent platforms in 2005. Since these blockages are a result of user choice, how is this a less "people-centered" internet?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today proprietary
apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not saying that we should
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Wrong. Most "proprietary" apps are free, and they link to and complement the web, they do not substitute for it. Furthermore, tons of web sites had (and still have) paywalls or login requirements in 2005.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great wonder
that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really contributed, or
failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic development, which
have been taking place under its watch, and the watch of a veritable travelling
circus that the global IG scene has become.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Even though I largely agree with the implied criticism of the IGF, and 100% agree that we must always ask what it has contributed, I think when you say the Internet has developed in the way it has "under its watch" you are exaggerating the significance of what the IGF is or could be. The Internet, like the overall economy, is not a centralized system under any single authority's "watch."
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness last week
in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving as if there is
just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in which it is effecting
large-scale structural changes in the world, in almost all sectors. There was
practically no mention at all of the numerous issues in this regard that we
read almost daily in the newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John
Deere claiming that its tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts,
and so on. To mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone.
The list in fact is unending).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
These are interesting developments in IT, but have no connection whatsoever to Internet governance.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">There was no political energy at all in the room (at
WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to end quickly
so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the politically charged
discussions during the original WSIS... What has happened in the meanwhile?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Interesting question. Worth discussing. I have my ideas about that, but you probably would not like them.
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>