[governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP
Lee McKnight
lmcknigh at syr.edu
Tue Mar 18 09:20:21 EDT 2008
There is a video of Bob's talk, will post URL soon.
Bob is advocating for local public ownership of Internet infrastructure,
treating access as a basic public service like sewers or water. A
separation of apps/services from infrastructure, with the infrastructure
envisioned as a local mesh apps ride on top of, is what he is imagining.
I'm skeptical of how this might work, but we may have a memo on a
greenfield layout along these lines before long. And before everyone
dismisses Bob as a dreamer, he previously dreamt up e spreadsheets
begetting the pc revolution, and then home networks and NATs - of course
with others too - so at least some of his dreams become real.
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/18/08 1:09 AM >>>
> Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own
> special style, questioning public and private roles in varying
> geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access.
> We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that
> workshop.
>
> Lee
Thanks. Will like to know about his critique and his model. Parminder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:21 PM
> To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on
IPenforcement/ISP
> liability in Europe: good news from
>
> Parminder, everyone,
>
> I'm hosting Bob Frankston today, the e-spreadsheets, NATs/home nets
> co-inventor.
>
> Bob's now advocating something similar for 'connectivity' in his own
> special style, questioning public and private roles in varying
> geographic, socioeconomic and technical contexts for Internet access.
> We'll post his lecture somewhere, also happy to pitch in for that
> workshop.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> parminder at itforchange.net 03/17/08 12:42 AM >>>
>
> > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
> > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with
> Internet
> > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of
a
> > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
> > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest
> with
> > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.
>
> I propose that IGC sponsors a workshop at the IGF on this issue.
> Connects IG
> to 'development' as little else does. I would say that this is the
real
> 'substance' of a 'development agenda' in IG.
>
> And IGF keeps insisting that seeing IG in a development context is the
> main
> agenda at the IGF.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:11 AM
> > To: 'Parminder'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP
> enforcement/ISP
> > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden
> >
> > I should be clear here, the below was my interpretation (and
> extrapolation
> > from) the account of the Swedish Ministers' comments...
> >
> > Why I think this would be notable if my interpretation is correct
(or
> > could
> > be "used" as correct) is that for example in Canada governments have
> been
> > moving quite rapidly towards a de facto social requirement for
> Internet
> > access (welfare application forms in some provinces are only
available
> off
> > the Internet!?!, there are now significant incentives towards online
> > filing
> > of income tax forms through a guarantee of quicker reviews and thus
> > quicker
> > access to refunds where appropriate and so on).
> >
> > However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public
> > responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some
> form
> > of
> > broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access.
> (Should
> > taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information
> > particularly when that second charge would (most generally)
represent
> a
> > tax
> > on those least able to pay?)
> >
> > I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
> > Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with
> Internet
> > Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of
a
> > privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
> > "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest
> with
> > the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.
> >
> > Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance
> > (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of
> > affirming,
> > supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with
> > governments and others to determine the policy/programming
approaches
> that
> > flow from this.
> >
> > MG
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Sent: March 15, 2008 10:01 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Michael Gurstein'
> > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP
> enforcement/ISP
> > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden
> >
> >
> >
> > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is
> > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden
> and
> > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated
as
> a
> > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"),
> > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air
> > > rather than on the order of
> > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a
> bank
> > > account.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Mike for pointing to this...
> >
> > Something to reflect on why would this formulation first arise in a
> > developed country when 'digital divide' is considered really an
issue
> of
> > developing countries. It is strange that when public connectivity
> > infrastructure (Muni-wifi) is becoming such an important thing in
the
> > North,
> > policy prescription for the South is still markets, markets and more
> > markets
> > for an 'IS for all'. This prescription is pushed through donor
> agencies,
> > including many international NGOs, through control over purse
strings,
> as
> > well as a superior capacity to theorize, write out and push policy
and
> > practice frameworks for ICTD.
> >
> > It is a bit ironic that such a 'welfarist' formulation comes first
> from a
> > government, that too of the North (with lesser social equity issues)
> > rather
> > than civil society, which is normally considered a progressive
force.
> >
> > I am quite sure there will be little or no discussion on this issue
> here,
> > even with this lead. Some may just not be bothered. Others will use
> the
> > argument that it is not a core governance issue. I will like this to
> be
> > debated here. How whether Internet is seen essentially as a market
> > infrastructure, or it is seen as something 'fundamental to public
well
> > being' not impact the nature of its governance systems is really
> beyond
> > me.
> >
> > Meanwhile, mentions of public/ community infrastructure keep
> disappearing
> > (even after it is put there with a lot of effort in the first place)
> from
> > IGF's agenda. It happened in Athens, and Hyderabad's program details
> are
> > already showing the same tendencies. And we the IGC - the CS front
in
> IG
> > area - are hardly concerned. No discussion, no talk about it. But
the
> > moment
> > anyone tries to posit basic governance issue like managing CIRs as
> > important
> > issue for IGF, such strong sentiment wells up to tell us that
> governance
> > issues are not the real thing, access is. It is more than a bit
funny.
> > (sorry, for the sarcasm, but I really feel very bad about it.)
> >
> > And the problem is that any effort to discuss such substantive
issues
> - of
> > what we stand for, whom we present - immediately comes up against
> either
> > allegations of 'trying to get exclusive', causing distraction, or
> plainly,
> > what Meryem called as 'inertia games.
> >
> > I think we cant really be arguing on who should we nominate for MAG,
> how
> > many seats we should get etc without internally examining who we
are,
> what
> > and whom do we represent, why should we be seen as the major CS
front
> in
> > IG
> > area... and such.
> >
> > I would think, it is hypocritical to speak about increased
> representation
> > on
> > the MAG without at all examining these issues. We must be alive to a
> > possible view that we may just be illegitimately occupying a CS
vacuum
> in
> > the IG space, and trying to further consolidate the advantage.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:04 PM
> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP
enforcement/ISP
> > > liability in Europe: good news from Sweden
> > >
> > > This does I think, have significant implications for "Internet
> > > governance"...including changing the status in policy terms of
> exactly
> > > what is being "governed"...
> > >
> > > I believe what is being suggested here (the underlying article is
> > > unfortunately only in Swedish) is that Internet access (in Sweden
> and
> > > thus by implication in all Developed Countries) should be treated
as
> a
> > > a service fundamental to public well-being ("imperative welfare"),
> > > presumably on the order of areas such as fresh water and clean air
> > > rather than on the order of
> > > a discretionary service such as for example cable television or a
> bank
> > > account.
> > >
> > > MG
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org
> > > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Vera Franz
> > > Sent: March 14, 2008 7:59 AM
> > > To: ipr&publicdomain; a2k discuss list
> > > Subject: [A2k] keeping an eye on IP enforcement/ISP liability in
> Europe:
> > > good news from Sweden
> > >
> > > "The proposal in the Renfors-review that ISPs should be given the
> > > right and be forced to shut down subscribers whose Internet
> > > subscription has repeatedly been used for infringing copyrights
has
> > > met with strong criticism. Many have noted that shutting down an
> > > Internet subscription is a
> > > wide-reaching measure that could have serious repercussions in a
> society
> > > where access to the Internet is an imperative welfare-issue. The
> > > government
> > > has, because of this, decided not to pursue this proposal."
> > >
> > > ---Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask & Swedish Minister of
> > > Culture Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth in today's Swedens Daily.
> > > http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd
> > >
> > > --
> > > Vera Franz
> > > Program Manager
> > > Information Program
> > > <www.soros.org/ip>
> > > Open Society Foundation
> > > 100, Cambridge Grove
> > > London W6 0LE
> > > phone +44 20 7031 0219
> > > fax +44 20 7031 0247
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This message might contain confidential information and is
protected
> > > by copyright. If you receive it in error, please notify us, delete
> it
> > > and do not make use of or copy it.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > A2k mailing list
> > > A2k at lists.essential.org
> > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
> > >
> > >
> > > !DSPAM:2676,47dbc344227569846876981!
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list