[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

[Roland Perry]

In message <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40 at email.android.com>, at 
20:50:06 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces 
>enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism 
>may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language 
>itself or the Internet should not be

The Internet is a collection of routers, cables and peering agreements. 
Curiously enough, a majority of the latter are still maintained on a "no 
settlement" basis - in other words traffic passes but no money changes 
hands. But someone has to install the routers and cables, and that has 
to be owned and paid for.

Or are you talking about ownership of things like the HTTP and SMTP 
protocols which make the WWW and email possible.

I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that all content on the Internet is 
inside what you call "spaces" (like Yahoo, eBay, Facebook, Twitter...) 
which are OK to own.

Just so I understand, can you give some examples of things you think 
have been [mis]appropriated, that used to be [Internet] commons and 
aren't any longer.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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