[governance] Internet as public good

[Seiiti Arata]

Hi all

-just wanted to share with you in the context of this interesting
discussion a work sponsored by DiploFoundation's Internet Governance
Research Project entitled "Protection of Public Interest on the
Internet".

Researchers involved were Seiiti Arata Jr. and Stephanie Psaila, under
Diplo tutorship. The link to the pdf document follows below.

http://www.diplomacy.edu/IG/research/IGRP-ProtectionofPublicInterestonInternet.pdf

Your comments will be welcome.

Best regards from Brazil
Seiiti

On 12/1/05, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm familiar with the work you're mentioning, and with the two books that
> > were produced with UNDP support, etc.  And I know that a number of CS
> > folks feel strongly about this formulation, see it as normatively and
> > strategically advantageous, etc, and in light of that acknowledged that
> > the language would undoubtedly remain in the statement.  I just think that
> > the "broader sense" of public goods you invoke appropriates and turns a
> > clear concept into a vaguer one for political purposes (which I generally
> > share), and that this can engender confusion and dismissive responses from
> > other quarters in ways that don't help CS much.
>
> We seem to have now two definitions of public goods:
> 1. the economic definition, which describes public goods as
> non-exclusive and non-rivalrous; 2. the normative definition, which
> describes public goods as those that should be available for free for
> everybody. In some cases, these different concepts seems to overlap. I
> was of the opinion that one of these cases does indeed concern
> information. Information must be tied to paper or other media in order
> to make it exclusive and thus tradeable. I like the econcomic definition
> of public goods because it provides a good basis for criticizing digital
> rights management systems.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
>
>  Take knowledge and
> > information.  We can say these are public goods in the broad sense that we
> > think there are positive effects to them being as widely and freely
> > available as possible, but of course an enormous amount knowledge and
> > information is in fact individually/organizationally private and
> > proprietary, so when people who think in terms of the more bounded
> > construction of the term in economics see that, they think, what the hell
> > are these people talking about?  If the answer is that we don't care what
> > those people think, ok, but it does make negotiating with and persuading
> > them a little more complicated.  I think you could advance the same goals
> > without making this particular discursive move.  And I don't think that
> > the fact that people might ask about a clearly contestable appropriation
> > of a concept is indicative of the IG caucus being 'efficiency-driven' and
> > 'positivist' (egad) and hence (?) unconcerned about normative objectives
> > like social justice and equality.  FWIW, epistemologically I'm more
> > inclined toward scientific realism and conventionalism, anyway, so you've
> > got the wrong guy with that one.
> >
> > Anyway, probably a long thread on this isn't going to get us anywhere and
> > could distract us from the items that need to be addressed, so maybe we
> > should just agree to disagree and spare everyone.  Either way, thanks for
> > responding..
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Parminder
> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:01 PM
> > To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance '
> > Cc: 'Anita Gurumurthy'; 'Guru at ITfC'; 'Chantal Peyer'; 'Pablo Accuosto'
> > Subject: [governance] Internet as public good
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a
> >
> > straightforward concept from economics, but it'll probably remain in
> > there regardless.>>
> >
> > And from an earlier mail of Bill:
> >
> >
> >>>Lastly, while this doesn't pertain to the IG sections of the text, I
> >
> > have a question:
> >
> >
> >>>Pg. 1:"societies in which the ability to access, share and communicate
> >
> > information and knowledge is treated as a public good"
> >
> >
> >>>Pg. 2: "Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among
> >
> > disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a
> > global public good."
> >
> >
> >>>Can someone explain to me according to what understanding of economics
> >
> > CS should declare an ability, or Internet access, to be public goods,
> > bearing in mind the two key dimensions thereof:
> >
> >
> >>>>Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once
> >
> > it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing
> > other's enjoyment.
> >
> > Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not
> > impossible, to prevent access to the good.
> >
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
> >
> >
> > It is not any misconstruing a straightforward concept from economics, but
> > sufficient thought, deliberation and research has gone into it. Please
> > find enclosed a paper commissioned by APC and another by ITeM on this
> > issue.
> >
> > Public goods is a widely used concept in a broader sense – and Global
> > Public Goods is increasingly used concept in global governance discourse
> > (pl see various UN documents on it).
> >
> > There are few pure public goods, and many other goods that are
> > complimentary to pure public goods are also considered public goods.
> >
> > In the above formulations there are three goods considered as public goods
> > – access to knowledge, ability to access knowledge and the means of free
> > access to knowledge (Internet access being one major mean)
> >
> > Access to knowledge and ability to access to knowledge are widely
> > recognized as public goods (education is considered a public good, and it
> > basically consists in access to knowledge and capacity to access
> > knowledge)
> >
> > So I cant see what could be anyone's problem with that – in considering
> > access to knowledge and ability to access knowledge as a public good.
> >
> > As for considering access to Internet as public good – as discussed above
> > there are few pure public goods – and the description is used in a wider
> > meaning.
> >
> > Providing Public Goods almost always is mediated through provision of
> > goods that are not pure public goods. And construing the definition of
> > public goods as strictly within two necessary conditions as laid above
> > leads to absurd results. For example, eradication of communication is a
> > global public good – but this conception is meaningless if we say, but
> > well providing access to necessary vaccines to all is not a public good –
> > because such a provisioning is obviously excludable. So any meaningful and
> > actionable consideration of 'prevention of communicable diseases'  as a
> > public good is possible only if provisioning of necessary vaccines is also
> > considered a public good. Without the later, the former conception is
> > obviously meaningless, and a mere play with words.
> >
> > So if we consider that Internet today is a major vehicle not only of
> > access to knowledge, but also the major enabler of so many life-enriching
> > opportunity, it is obvious that a market-based provisioning of Internet
> > greatly under-optimizes these great universal opportunities. Everyone will
> > be much better off if a public goods based provisioning of internet is
> > made. There is a lot said and written on this issue (including with regard
> > to public provisioning of Internet in many cities in the developed
> > countries) and the inputs made to the draft CS declaration is informed by
> > all these.
> >
> > It is in any case the job of the CS is to take such views of issues that
> > are forward-looking, and based on principles of social justice and equity.
> > I may also add here that a global public goods based approach to ICTs has
> > been a main plank of CS advocacy during the WSIS.
> >
> > I know that in saying what I am going to say now, I will be treading on
> > dangerous grounds, but I do feel that many on this list (IG caucus) take
> > too much of a efficiency-driven, almost a positivist approach to Internet
> > rather than a normative approach - about what all can Internet can do to
> > build a world that is more equal and just to everyone. Maintaining and
> > enhancing efficiency and stability of the Internet is very important, but
> > Internet is a potent force with great potentiality, and much hope has been
> > vested by many on its possibilities.
> >
> > I think sorting out the basic approach of what are we really looking for
> > here in our IG advocacy will help us a lot to move ahead.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> >
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> >
> > IT for Change
> >
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >
> > 91-80-26654134
> >
> > www.ITforChange.net
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 4:02 PM
> > To: Governance
> > Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jeanette,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >
> >
> >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >
> >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major
> >
> >
> >>goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight.
> >
> >
> >>We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses
> >
> >
> >>who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues
> >
> >
> >>constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor
> >
> >
> >>to decide.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand your concern, but a few points in response:
> >
> >
> >
> > First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their
> >
> > issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG
> >
> > would be the primary reason for this.  There are already grounds for such
> >
> > a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and
> >
> > headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based
> >
> > assertion that IG is 'more important' than other items, I think it's a
> >
> > statement of empirical fact.  There was a high-stakes global battle
> >
> > underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we
> >
> > actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be
> >
> > afraid to say this was a major concern going in?  If I were a government
> >
> > or press person reading the statement, I'd certainly wonder why IG wasn't
> >
> > listed as a key objective.  Third, frankly, my preference would be to have
> >
> > passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined
> >
> > by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one
> >
> > each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific
> >
> > and two cross-cutting objectives.   Starting from what phase II was
> >
> > actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf
> >
> > could explain what is listed here and what is not.  There is anyway lots
> >
> > of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in
> >
> > phase I.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we
> >
> >
> >>should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we
> >
> >
> >>have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not
> >
> >
> >>convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why
> >
> >
> >>not something like "...create a working group that will make
> >
> >
> >>recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation.  Since Avri's ok
> >
> > with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on
> >
> > board.  Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will
> >
> > try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS
> >
> > grouping can't do what it wants.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>I agree with your points re "public good".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a
> >
> > straightforward concept from economics, but it'll probably remain in there
> >
> > regardless.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public
> >
> > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four
> >
> > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a
> >
> > role in shaping.  Clustering like points and having thematic sections that
> >
> > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way
> >
> > constitute a downgrading of this important concern.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know
> >
> > that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in
> >
> > yea or nay on the two IG points.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance