[governance] Apology

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Hi,

full, unqualified apology for too harsh statment not meant generally.

The offence produced is beyond excuse without further particulars.

Alejandro Pisanty

Alejandro Pisantu

Sent via BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:17:12 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<isolatedn at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] a very grounded and divergent perspective on
 NetNeutrality


S,

Don't be too concerned. Sit back and watch the ongoing discussion as a form of intellectual porn, akin to mud-wrestling.

Alx

Sent via BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn at gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:51:39 
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: Parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>; Michael Gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>; Brian Beaton<brianbeaton at knet.ca>; <steveinfos at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] a very grounded and divergent perspective on Net
 Neutrality


Hello Milton,

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 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.
>
Parminder's point about ownership is exactly the kind of expression that
sends out wrong signals from Civil Society to other stakeholders. Business
as a stakeholder would misinterpret such expressions as a suggestion for a
public take over of all the infrastructure that have been built mostly with
private investments, which is unfair.  Barring a few extreme exceptions, the
Civil Society is always fair in acknowledging that the Internet Infrastrure
took shape mostly with private investments.  Perhaps Parminder also does not
imply 'Public Ownership' of the equipment, wires and cables ? Or does he?

There is also a danger.  When  someone says 'public' and 'ownership' on the
same line, there is a danger of this being interpreted not as a suggestion
for "shared ownership" but rather as "ownership by governments", like how it
was in the former Soviet Union and in India until the mid 80s. The line
between public ownership and govenment 'ownership' is very thin, in that
sense.

*The Internet has evolved from a fusion of private enterprise and public
participation, in a laissez faire climate. It needs to evolve further on the
same model. *

What is often missed is that there is public participation in business,
though at an indirect level. Investments come from private enterprise which
are originally funded by the public through the Stock Exchange ! Should I go
back to the previous paragraph and edit it to say that Parminder is right?

And there is a possibility that further investments could come more from
enterprises that embrace the "social enterprise" business models that would
balance the Civil Society and Business positions???

> I can agree on principles when they are articulated with a full, exacting
> respect for the technical and historical facts.
>
>____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/
http://twitter.com/isocchennai

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20081228/a173ef30/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