[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

Mon Apr 15 01:07:03 EDT 2013

On Monday 15 April 2013 12:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Thanks Anriette for a very useful commentary and Avri for raising the issue...
>
> There is of course, the contemporary (?) debate as to whether to refer to issues such as the management of water supplies as a "management of a commons" or as a "management of a public good"... In both formulations of course, there are inbuilt assumptions--in the first instance, that of the "commons" there is an assumption that the structure of governance/management is occuring in some sort of context where no existing governance/management structures are already in place and thus means must found to create these; which, as Anriette points to, should be such as to satisfy the (legitimate?) needs of all parties.  In the latter case that of the "public good", there is the assumption of the pre-existence of a "public" and thus of some form of governance structures which repesent at some level the collective will of that public.
>
> Those of an anti-government/anti-State bent will clearly opt for the former formulation while those without such a bias will potentially opt for either depending on the specifics of the circumstance.
>
> Whether in our context the Internet is seen as a "commons" or as a "public good" may thus perhap simply be a matter of taste (or political/ideological pre-disposition).

I think there is more to the difference between the use of these two 
terms. Commons mostly (though not always) refers to resources that are 
already naturally present, and thus its governance largely consists of 
negative responsibilities and obligations. Public goods are similar to 
commons in that eveyone should have equal or equitable right to them, 
but generally public goods have to be produced and distributed equitably 
through positive action. Now, such a need for creation and distribution 
by positive action does bring in the role of a well resourced actor 
working in common/ public interest (including possessing the resource of 
'coercive action' if necessary) which well is what governments 
definitionally are. ( I understand that 'positive assets' can also be 
created through a FOSS like commons approach but that has its limitation 
and need almost always to be complemented by 'public' efforts to ensure 
equitable rights for all.)

Therefore, since the Internet and its equitable enjoyment requires both 
some kind of guarantees of unrestrained access to what can be considered 
as naturally existing conditions (like freedom of expression, the right 
to freely innovate etc)  and ability to enjoy conditions that need to be 
created through positive action, requiring large scale resources and 
coordination effort, we indeed require a hybrid commons/ public goods 
approach to it (employing a term that you use below).

parminder
>
> However, a decision around this may also be associated with issues such as assessments of the role of power--economic, political, social--in the context of governance. One of the major challenges facing those who opt to see the Internet as a commons is how to deal with issues of power differentials  within that commons.  Avri in her disquisition pointed to the power of the State in abrogating the extent of the commons but interestingly she failed to mention the role of private corporations in similarly parcelling out and limiting the extent of the commons and perhaps more importantly the capacity of the commons to self-manage its affairs in contexts where the private sector is already acting/has power. (To use Anriette's example what happens when the water supply is already in whole or in part privatized, how then to treat it as a commons in the absence of State power?)
>
> Any discussion of the Internet as a commons must IMHO as a basic and defining issue deal with how in an Internet treated as a commons, the differential power of the various actors will be managed/controlled/equalized (?).  It is again IMHO totally insufficient to present the Internet as a commons as a paradigm for matters of Internet Governance and specifically as a solution to presumed overweening attempts at control by States without equally dealing with matters of actual patterns of control over significant elements of the Internet by unaccountable private corporations and individual States pursuing their own specific self-interests.
>
> One reason to opt for a paradigm of the Internet as a global public good is precisely because within that model are conceptual elements and strategies for managing/controlling the role of otherwise unaccountable private sector actors and equally that of rogue States which choose to ignore the role of the global interest in the pursuit of local/national interests.
>
> Whether some commons/publc good hybrid model is possible where concerns with respect to government control (as for example with respect to Freedom of Expression) and parallel concerns with respect to private control or individual national control (as for example in ensuring the public interest in matters such as privacy, equality in the distribution of opportunities to realize benefits, and so on) can be mutually accommodated is perhaps our most important task in this context.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:59 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
>
> The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet commons?
> As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.
> I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'
> internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.
>
> There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.
>
> The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.
>
> I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression, 'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....
>
> I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what kind of entity we understand it to be.
>
> When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often essential to the survival of many species.
>
> Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and often the wrong decisions will be made.
>
> I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet
> - from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet governance.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>> All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property.  Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week
>>> in San Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said:
>>> "there's no commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely
>>> related to the conflict presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread.
>>> I'm still struggling with that assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within
>>>>> the remit of your question):
>>>> It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been
>>> sufficiently
>>>> conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>>> The private sector has built extensive networks [fixed and mobile]
>>>>> using $billons of investment on which their shareholders [many of
>>>>> whom are the consumers' pension funds] expect a return, versus many
>>>>> customers who feel entitled to have unlimited usage for a
>>>>> relatively trivial monthly payment (which
>>> they
>>>>> sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").
>>>>>
>>>>> I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but
>>>>> merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably
>>> represents.
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Diego R. Canabarro
>>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>>
>>> --
>>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
>>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>>> --
>> Avri Doria
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
>

-------------- 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