[governance] a very grounded and divergent perspective on Net

[Parminder]

> >We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the 
possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network -- whose 
central >> characteristics  (mentioned in social rather than technical 
terms) should be that

 

> >1.   In terms of ownership -- it is public

 

>As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of the 
internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the 
investment are private........ >So >the  critical feature of the 
internet is in many ways precisely the opposite of what you are asserting.

Milton

First of all, it is clear from my usage above, and the background of 
this issue in the 'publicness of the Internet' concept, that I speak of 
Internet being public not in strict legal ownership terms, but in 
socio-political terms. So you think the essential characteristic of the 
Internet is that it is private ?? I do suspect so from your views on 
network neutrality, but I will come to that in a seperate email.

Your counter-arguments to my propositions are a bit slippery, and 
shifting. When confronting the 'ownership' issue (not legalistic-ally, 
but as everyone having in principle full and equal right to) you speak 
of the Internet as the physical networks. And when I speak of the 
'purpose' of the Internet, you switch to speaking of the Internet as its 
essential protocols. Thats a bit, shall I say, disingenuous :-). Because 
if we speak of Internet as its essential protocols it is easy to agree 
about the publicness of the Internet. On the other hand, if we speak of 
it as physical networks built with private investments it is easier to 
speak of its purpose - which is private gain, with no guarantee of 
public interest and gains.

This brings us to the essential issue which my email dealt with - trying 
to figure out the essential nature of the Internet, as we would like to 
have, and from their possibly derive the basic public policy principles 
for it. Would you not agree that this will be the logical way to go 
about it. I know you too are quite interested in developing the basic 
public policy principles for the Internet. Would you then state what you 
think are the essential characteristics of the Internet, and then we can 
debate it.

>The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but they are useful only 
because they allow any and all private networks and privately owned 
equipment to be >interconnected.

Any public system - roads, infrastructure of the market, laws, etc - are 
useful only because they facilitate private individuals. Everyone knows 
that. This does not obliterate the difference between the public and the 
private, does it!

>However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to connect networks 
initially outstripped the understanding and capacity of governments to 
regulate....

and the understanding and the capacity of the corporates to appropriate.

>  one could say that its effect was more libertarian than egalitarian. 
But its uniform, open nature did indeed level the playing field and 
afford those interested in >communicating more equal rights than they 
have ever had before.

This is interesting. You say that the socio-political impact of the 
Internet was incidental. Fine, I may accept that, but you also seem to 
be non-committal about how it should be, hereon. Don't you want the 
Internet to have any (socio-political) directions and purpose. If you do 
want to it to have any, would you please state it. The whole debate is 
about that. That is what we all are where about.

>more libertarian than egalitarian.

Now, this is fair turf. This is really what we are discussing, the above 
was mostly avoidable red-herring. (Though the term 'libertarian' is used 
by so many different types, that it often confuses me. I understand you 
are professing views more of what may be called as right-libertarian 
kind. Please correct me if I am wrong, in India we are still not very 
used to these terms). Since we want to keep our discussion practical, 
and purposeful, I think a very good instantiation of the above political 
difference is in our views on network neutrality. Will discuss in 
another email.

parminder


Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Parminder:
>
> Happy holidays, all. Sorry for the slow response.
>
>  
>
> It seems that we have had this conversation before, and you always 
> have to agree that I am right but it never seems to make an impression 
> on your political rhetoric. So I will try again (because
> I am just as persistent as you, and will not allow policies or 
> principles that are incorrect to be established simply because someone 
> keeps repeating them.
>
>  
>
> We need to develop and anchor such basic principles that maximize the 
> possibilities of the Internet as a new revolutionary network -- whose 
> central characteristics (mentioned in social rather than technical 
> terms) should be that
>
>  
>
> 1.   In terms of ownership -- it is public
>
>  
>
> As I have explained numerous times, the essential characteristic of 
> the internet is NOT that it is public; the networks and most of the 
> investment are private. The STANDARDS are open and nonproprietary, but 
> they are useful only because they allow any and all private networks 
> and privately owned equipment to be interconnected. It is, in other 
> words, the correct mixture of private and public elements, in their 
> respective roles (to quote the TA) that makes it a success. The open 
> protocols allow private initiative to flourish, and enable people to 
> offer content and services without asking the public for permission. 
> So the critical feature of the internet is in many ways precisely the 
> opposite of what you are asserting.
>
>  
>
> I know that this does not conform to your ideology, but it's a fact.
>
>  
>
> 2.   and in terms of its key purpose, and orientation -- it is 
> egalitarian (definition of 'egalitarian' from The American Heritage 
> Dictionary -- "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in 
> equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people")
>
>  
>
> Again I think you've got it wrong.
>
> Strictly speaking, the internet protocols do not have a "purpose" 
> other than to establish compatible data communications among any and 
> all networks. However, because the TCP/IP protocol suite's ability to 
> connect networks initially outstripped the understanding and capacity 
> of governments to regulate, one could say that its effect was more 
> libertarian than egalitarian. But its uniform, open nature did indeed 
> level the playing field and afford those interested in communicating 
> more equal rights than they have ever had before.
>
>  
>
> Once we agree to these highest level principles as those most 
> essential to what we call as the Internet -- their contextual 
> elaborations can always be done, in different circumstances and as 
> related to different issues and aspects. No doubts, such elaboration 
> will itself be a political process, subject to political trade-offs. 
> The question is, are we as a world community -- and to start with as a 
> group of progressive civil society -- able to agree to these (or any 
> other) social and political principles to be the highest constitutive 
> principles for the Internet.
>
>  
>
> I can agree on principles when they are articulated with a full, 
> exacting respect for the technical and historical facts.
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20081227/0d5de1c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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