AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance

Mon Apr 15 02:44:00 EDT 2013

Dear all,

I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better.

International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality).

So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required.

Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting?

Kind regards
Matthias

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance

Anriette/ All

I find this posting, and later ones in the thread very interesting. Indeed a good amount of confusion in this group's internal interactions owe to the fact that while we have some broad process rules, we have very little in terms of substance that we can take as a starting point for our political/ advocacy work. Recognising the Internet as a commons/ public good, and seeking that its basic governance principles flow from such a basic understanding of the Internet, is good and useful basic agreement to try to reach for this group,

I propose that the caucus adopts this as a/ the basic principle for IGC's political/ advocacy work.

I propose that we even go beyond and adopt a working definition of the Internet, absence of which itself has been identified as a major problem that renders many of our discussions/ positions here unclear. Avri proposes the following definition, which I find very encouraging....
"Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, and human intentionality brought together by a common set of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by the stakeholders."

I propose small modifications to it
"Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, human intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by due democratic processes."

So what I propose for this caucus to adopt is as follows
"We recognise the Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, human intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by due democratic processes. Accordingly, the Internet is to be considered as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute the governance of the Internet should must flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and a public good."
The text can of course be improved a lot, but I thought it is good to put forward something that the caucus can work upon...

parminder

On Sunday 14 April 2013 10:28 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

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><mailto: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><mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com><mailto: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<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130415/6d0a5431/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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