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

Sun Apr 15 01:29:53 EDT 2007

Milton

> 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."

I don't know why you are resorting to such essentialism vis a vis my
position. When did I say what you attribute to me? I can unearth many emails
where I have argued for an evolutionary global public policy mechanism,
where civil society has a big role (but governments have as well). But I
don't have to do so because in the very email from which you picked the
subject ' who does public policy then' I have stated my position on the
public policy structures/ options around ICANN

>And now as the government sector gets better and better accommodated by
>ICANN, we may be moving towards an alliance of the rich, corporates and
>governments doing mutual accommodations and governing the most important
>infrastructure of the emerging information society in their interests. For
me it is a scary scenario. I quote a recent email by Mawaki.

 >>Meanwhile, the transition has unfortunately been on and on...
>>too long, untill now all the governments are realizing what power they can
>>exert over the central infrastructure of the >Net ... In a short while,
>>they will all love ICANN and oppose any institutional change;....

How do you reconcile your accusation with this statement, which I think is
made quite forcefully...

So, lets not create divisions in the areas we agree. We both are for
evolutionary global public policy structures where both civil society and
government has respective roles. 

I think what got you in my email was reference to 'positive human rights' as
possible basis of a global public policy regime as will - issues like
'redistribution' and free, public, internet. Yes, in this area we do have
differences which will be good to discuss.

When I think of why when I spoke about 'positive human rights' you brought
in 'interference of governments' (which wasn't an issue on the table) I can
see how terms like 'positive rights' and entitlements, and 'redistribution
of wealth' make you think governments, and 'negative rights' as civil
society areas. This is very problematic. In the developing world much of
civil society is in constant struggle against governments to obtain these
'positive rights' for people. So I will request you not to pass off your
version of civil society as the global civil society, which in any case
better resourced groups/ persons from the North often succeed in doing. The
precise objective of my email was to make this point.   

Yes, positive rights do mean 'redistribution of wealth' and more involvement
of governments. And many negative rights are about minimalist involvement of
the state. But you cant equate advocacy of enforcement of positive rights as
endorsement of illegitimate exercise of power by the state, which you have
done in this email. This only shows your impatience and frustration with
discussion of any kind of positive rights. But be assured, you wont be able
be move towards any kind of legitimate, stable, well-defined global public
policy systems, for IG or otherwise, which you so aspire for, without
admitting the legitimacy of these right. At the very least, having an open
minded discussion on these rights. This is the very sine qua non of moving
toward, what you call as ' true, legitimate
> public policy, which is formed from deliberation, representation and due
> process'.

As for free lunches.....
Do you realize that public spending in the US as a percentage of GDP is more
than twice as in India, and in many European countries it is more than 3
times. This translates to an even greater multiple in terms of absolute
public spending per capita Do you think this doesn't (mostly) end up as
'redistribution of wealth'.. So who do you think is having 'free lunches'?
in this context, on what basis do you speak against 'free lunches' in terms
of a revolutionary infrastructure which is (on the whole) relatively much
cheaper than any other infrastructure to provide universal, and equalizing,
access to to knowledge, education and opportunity. In fact, to fruitful
participation in the social fabric of the global society. 

> Internet is not the same as education.

As much as FoE of UDHR is not the same as a license for putting up a global
infrastructure for pornography. You interpreted FoE in an evolutionary
manner, in the digital age with globally common information/ content
infrastructure. I am interpreting 'right to free education' in the same way
for digital era. Is it possible to have free education (with which you seem
to agree) without free Internet (with which you don't)? 

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?

I have proved the first part of your statement wrong. As for the second
part, it is just your hurry to connect all forms of equity consideration and
'positive discrimination' with governmental 'control'. It is evident that I
don't want governments to 'take over' internet access, routing etc. I want
any legitimate public mechanism which influences these issues to have
considerations of equity, and 'positive discrimination' that it entails. Any
legitimate governance system owes to do this. On the other hand there are
these so-called governance systems that are merely platforms for
negotiations for sectional interests, and since power itself is an
instrument of negotiation, the more powerful ends up getting still better
gains. These are the systems of 'private governance'.  For me this is the
difference between private and public governance. You can't force on me a
stance of favoring greater illegitimate state interventions in people's
lives when I speak of 'public'. 

> 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?

Right, Indian economy is growing fast, which is important. But that is only
one part of the story. I can quote official statistics to show that in the
same decade that India has made this spectacular economic growth, its health
indicators have actually gone down. Why? Well, because someone of your
ideological persuasion decided that access to public health systems
constitutes 'free lunches'. 

So it is important to decide what are 'free lunches' and what not on the
basis of a country's requirement and stage of growth. And these decisions
have important bearing on polices. US court ruling that cable Internet isnt
'telecommunication' but a value-add 'information service'  is an important
indicator how a society's perception on what is an essential public service
(telecom laws are written on this premise because they were written when US
was still on the path to institutional maturity in many market areas) and
what is normal economic service. Do you think US courts would have ruled
thus 2 decades back? Why should present US outlook on these matters
constitute the basis of global Internet polices.... The important point to
note is that ICANN mostly works on this received wisdom. And when you want
it to keep working without any public policy interventions, you want it to
keep working per this political wisdom. This is my problem with 'policy
vacuums' I spoke about, and 'ICANN shouldn't do public policy - but we don't
know who should' kind of stances effectively translates into voting for
ICANN working on these public policy principles.. When ICANN isnt doing
public policy, it is doing public policy by the default political wisdom,
which is mostly that of US's and powerful corporates' political interests.

>I see no
> need, and much damage, caused by an attempt to make it "free" (as in
> "free beer," not free software) for everybody.

First of all, it should be evident that I am not asking for free downloads
of Hollywood movies on the Internet. I am asking for free access to basic
information/ knowledge and services on the Internet, and the access to
Internet itself. You would have heard of free stuff on all aspects of what
constitutes Internet - connectivity (Muni Wifi in US, as also google's free
internet), software (loads of free software on the Internet) and content
(wikipedia, and numerous other free content). So, what's the big deal?

The accent on 'free' is vis a vis the growing propertization of all aspects
of the digital space... So stressing the 'free' part is only vis a vis
complete and default propertization. No one is calling for everything
whatsoever to be given out free. 

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:26 PM
> To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: who does "public policy" then?
> 
> 
> >>> "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