[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

Mon Apr 15 03:21:50 EDT 2013

Dear Anriette,

Have u checked the definition adopted.by the draft of the INet Bill of
Rights (Marco Civil) in Brazil? It is  very narrow definition. Im using
mobile web now. Let me know if u need help with the translation.

Regards
Diego
On Apr 14, 2013 11:59 AM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org> 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> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130415/1570dc6b/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