[governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Tue Mar 18 11:14:13 EDT 2008
I'm a bit hazy on how it has been working out in the last while but as I
understand it the government of British Columbia instituted a province wide
program for smaller communities which was based on precisely the model
mentioned below... That is the Province aggregated its purchase of Internet
service into the smaller communities (they represented anywhere from 40% up
of overall service). Through this aggregation on a Province wide basis they
were able to negotiate highly favourable terms with a single carrier to
allow the creation of points of presence in all interested communities.
The communities in turn were encouraged and supported in developing local
ISP's to manage the service (they ranged from NGO's through public agencies
owned by the municipal authorities through to private companies). They were
provided with the Internet acess at a very favourable cost and then were
free to contract with whomever they wished at whatever prices they could
negotiate for the range of services (including muni-wifi) tiered on top of
the basic access including municipal services, fee for service applications
for customers and so on.
Garth Graham probably knows more about this but it has proven I think, very
successful in ensuring a very wide distribution of broadband access
throughout the province.
Internet governance in the public interest?
MG
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
Sent: March 18, 2008 6:20 AM
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