[governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people (was RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC)

[Dan Krimm]

At 2:40 PM +0800 4/23/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>Parminder wrote:
>> I have asked the question a number of times - and I ask it again - what
>> is the 'internet community'? Is it the technical and trade people
>> directly involved with the internet infrastructure (ISOC's - a major
>> player in the field - definition seems to imply so), or the current
>> Internet users, or all people who are impacted by the Internet (which is
>> all the people of the world).
>
>The last option is too broad to be meaningful.  My understanding of the
>Internet community is simply the community of Internet users.


I think it may be useful to distinguish what constituency is pertinent to
what policy contexts.

With regard to "Internet Governance" as the context, if we split this into
(at least) technical and political domains, it would seem to me that
perhaps only the "Internet community" or "Internet users" might have direct
interests in technical matters, but "all people of the world" do have an
interest in political matters, because the political impacts extend well
beyond the technical infrastructure of the Internet.

This seems to be one element of architectural confusion at ICANN, for
example.  If the representative structure (such as it is) is designed
around merely technical matters, but the policy domain has crept outward to
extend to political matters, then there is a systematic mismatch between
the representative structure and the policy domain.

When it comes to political matters involving the Internet, it is pretty
clear to me that all people of the world have a stake in that, because the
Internet has risen to the level of importance of a "public utility" in the
last ten years or so.  It has the potential to significantly affect the
lives of every individual on the planet, and so all individuals are
legitimate stakeholders in the political process, either directly or
indirectly.

So in an IG context in the broad political sense, politics is
tautologically involved, and representation should extend to all.

What the proper institutional structure should be to handle the mix of
technical and political domains is a separate matter.  (I would suggest
that it makes sense to separate the technical jurisdiction from broader
political jurisdiction with separate institutions, and let ICANN continue
as a technical institution, which its design fits much better than the
political domain.)

Dan
____________________________________________________________
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