[governance] RE: who does "public policy" then?

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 4/13/2007 5:20:21 AM >>>
>This is important for all of us in the .xxx debate to
>understand and acknowledge. Many people who have 
>argued against the ICANN decision do not seem to think that 
>the refusal itself is a public policy stance. 

Yes, you can say any decision by ICANN that is generally applicable to
the Internet either _is_ "public policy," or is derived from legal or
normative policy assumptions, or has policy implications. I have always
argued this. 

Where we seem to differ is that you, and many governments, believe that
designating something as "public policy" means "we [governments] get to
control it." My point is, not necessarily. It can be wise public policy,
or a human right, to have governments _not_ interfere. And even when we
want govts to intervene, they need to do so by means of clear, just
rules, not just whims.

I take strong exception to the view, that it is necessarily
"progressive" or humanistic to advocate state intervention as a matter
of principle, particularly after a century of experience showing how too
much of it can be both oppressive and economically counterproductive. So
don't get too excited about being able to call "everything" public
policy, or showing that every decision has policy implications. It does
not necessarily provide a rationale for state intervention, or
redistribution of wealth, or the other things you are interested in. 

>Now, you seem to legitimize this particular public policy position 
>of ICANN (had ICANN taken it) on the ground of  a  superior
legitimate, 
>commonly accepted 'rule of law' in terms of human rights, as against 
>the publicvpolicy position of rejecting .xxx which, in your view, is
an 
>adhoc interference by governments, and largely illegitimate.

Not quite correct. I simply want to draw a clear distinction between
lawless, arbitrary interventions by governments, and true, legitimate
public policy, which is formed from deliberation, representation and due
process. Some people seem to believe that whatever governments say they
want at a given moment, is somehow "public policy." I disagree. The
problem with GAC's intervention in .xxx was that it was not guided by
any legitimately formulated law of global scope. And the same problem
exists with the proposed GAC intervention in all future new TLD
applications. It is self-evidently ridiculous for governments to take a
"we know it when we see it" approach to public policy issues in ICANN --
but that is where we seem to be going.
 
>The same instrument that gave us the FoE - universal declaration of 
>human rights - also provides for the 'right to free education'. I
interpret 
>this right in the digital age (or the information society) as 'right
to free, 
>and public, Internet' 

Education, FoE and Internet are related but one aspect of this
equivocation is just wrong. Internet is not the same as education. It is
a data communication services platform, over which education and many,
many, many other things can be delivered. There are other aspects of
this equation that are troublesome to me. First, by "public" you always
mean "state/government". Are you then suggesting that the governments of
the world should take over the supply of Internet access, routing, etc?
Do you seriously think that this would improve Internet access in
developing countries? Second, while one can support efforts to subsidize
access to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it, I see no
need, and much damage, caused by an attempt to make it "free" (as in
"free beer," not free software) for everybody.

>And why we almost never hear of this right in the context of IG, 
>while FoE is all around us. Has this anything to do with that
>
>(1) Many countries have reached a situation of strong institutional 
>maturity where markets are able provide a near universal access to the

>advantages of the new ICTs.

Yes. And there is every reason to believe that the same will be true of
developing countries, indeed, the advances in telecom access made in
India as liberalization has progressed there are fairly obvious, aren't
they? 

>(2)It is cheap to speak about FoE but right to a free, and public,
internet
>means a redistribution of resources (remember, right to free education
also
>does so)

It's not cheap to do something about FoE, people get put in jail or
even shot for it. As for "free" internet, I suspect that most people
have enough economic historical knowledge to be suspicious of free lunch
promises from politicians. 

>(3) Speaking of free and/or public nature of many aspects of these new
ICTs
>have very deleterious effect on the new paradigms of comparative
advantage
>(actually, rent seeking) that these countries are in the process of
building
>for the information society which has challenged existing
socio-economic
>power relationship?

not sure what you mean by this.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance