[governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private"

[Lee W McKnight]

Hi Paul,

Been enjoying the dialog. Am off on overdue holiday tomorrow so won;t belabor point now, but as to:

Public = Open and Private = Closed

Well things are more complicated than that in the Internet economy.

There are lots of private but relatively open software development environments; and some movement from private to public/open source development - of some things previously closed. Sometimes even by the same company, but now they hope others will contribute freebie code to help to augment their next - product development effort. Which will be built on top of open/public and closed/private; and open/private too.

Meaning, then, speaking of public policy, that an open Internet can;t be maintained or mandated by 'public' authority alone; since it requires and is constructed of - proprietary/private bits too. Some of which are then explicitly given away to the public. For example, we all use web standards, courtesy of W3C which we never talk about as a 'governance' issue. Even though it is a dues-paying private club. Which then gives away things under the GPL.

Anyway, to tie this back to the discussion on interconnection models and costs, and 'public' and 'private' in that context: in my own view, ultimately the Internet is public because it is built upon open, public (non-proprietary) standards, courtesy of IETF.  

Beyond that elemental level, where private networks configured for IP traffic intersect - exactly there, the rules of the road are very much in play, and IGF certainly could in a hypothetical future be a primary forum for sorting those questions out. 

But, and here I agree with Roland, trying to revert to voice-(half-) circuit regulatory models for - packet data networks among various contracted parties - doesn't help much.  And especially not for developing countries. Encouraging a couple data providers competing, in bringing bandwidth to and from - anywhere - usually works better, faster, at making more bandwidth available at lower cost.  The elusive public (interest) in that environment is - where we are kind of stuck at the moment.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto [lehto.paul at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein
Subject: [governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private"

On 7/16/11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is interesting Paul. I am not taking sides but am throwing these
> thoughts in for general discussion.
> Consider the analogy of roads. highways and border controls mechanisms such
> as Customs etc. Who determines the roads and highways that gets built? Who
> pays for it?

While private roads exist (no trespassing) public roads are most
common.  The rules of those roads are set by democratically elected
legislatures.  While legislatures on occasion (and because of
budgetary constraints usually) call for toll roads, the requirement of
a direct user fee collected in this way is disliked by large
majorities of people.  Part of the proof of the preference of most
people for free access to what they experience as the commons is the
preference of telephone users for a flat fee unlimited access
telephone plan, even if large numbers of those people would be
economically better off if they paid for each telephone usage, local
or long distance.  People want to have the freedom to go long
distances or talk endlessly on the phone, even if chances are they
will never do that, they want it anyway and will pay a premium for it
if forced to do so, as with telephone flat fee plans.

> There are all kinds of roads - public and private. Are tolls collected on
> some roads? Why are they collected?

Most of this is answered above.  Tolls are nearly universal on those
private roads that accept all comers, tolls are relatively rare but do
exist on government operated public roads, but disliked and
disfavored, and mostly instituted for budgetary reasons.
>
> Can anyone be allowed to drive through the roads or should there be some
> sort of rules? Who decides the rules and why?

There are always rules, even in the "freest" marketplace.  These rules
are the structures for freedom (don't dig up the grass in the park,
travel at a safe speed on the road, etc.)  Restrictions are lesser on
private property in terms of what one may do (cut the trees, etc) but
they are almost always greater in terms of who may participate (the
"exclusive use" element of property law).   Legislatures decide the
rules of the commons as well as the rules that still remain applicable
to purely "private" transactions.  One cannot on private property
spread nuclear radiation, or continually feed large fires.

What nearly all humans seem to want is a "private" home of some modest
minimum where they can retire and feel safe, and that implies the
right to exclude unwanted others, and thus its private property or
privacy that's sought.  At the same time, nearly all humans, when they
venture out into the world, want to maximize the commons - that which
is (up front at least) free to all.

I think it's mostly only when someone has found their way in this
world, (and found their way into enough money to join enough private
clubs, and pay for private schools and so forth that they can have the
illusion of an upscale "commons" together with some similarly wealthy
friends who are in the same schools and clubs)  that they start to
resent or oppose the commons they grew up in.  People thinking
themselves "self-made" and thinking they can now  purchase their own
"commons" start to resent paying taxes  to support the commons that
the general public mostly uses, because the wealthy have chosen to
form an upscale substitute commons.

These relatively few people come to believe (unlike the vast majority
of the population that picks the flat rate telephone plan that usually
subsidizes both their own freedom and everyone else's too, as well as
the phone company's profits), that they can safely pay for everything
they utilize on a direct user fee or toll basis, and therefore they
don't want any of their money to indirectly benefit other people.  But
they are the minority.
>
> Are there aspects which are public and private? Are these justified?

The more discriminatory in any way and the more money is charged, the
more the activity is normatively "private" and the less it is public.
 Some forms of discrimination even private clubs can't engage in (by
law), and some forms of exclusion are nevertheless practiced with
varying degrees of legal and social acceptability by public
governments.

But the bottom line is that what is public is normatively Open, and
what is private is normatively Closed.  To the extent there are
departures from these, they are either  justified or there is an
attempted justification based on necessity, or a grudging acceptance
of "reality" (public parks CLOSED at night, or tolls charged on a few
roads), or an outright controversy is caused, and perhaps a legal
violation depending on the specifics.  Despite lots of exceptions and
cross-over, the baseline from which we argue or reason our way to
exceptions is still Public = Open and Private = Closed, and most
people want a private home and a public world to the maximum extent
reasonably possible.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t