[governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Tue Mar 18 09:28:45 EDT 2008
Well yes, he's a visionary besides being a dreamer.
And he doesn't exactly like the idea of NAT these days, I think :)
A lot of what he advocates is unbundling taken to its extreme, shall we say,
combined with extending the concept of muni wifi, apartment buildings wired
for ethernet the way they are for power, etc.
I don't get the apps separate from infrastructure part - they already are,
with the web and web 2.0 (when done right) - but Bob's ideas are sometimes
way too arcane for me.
srs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:50 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
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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