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

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Thanks Adam.. and I think you posted some of this previously as well.

I really like the idea of submitting something to the WTPF.

Anriette


On 15/04/2013 11:39, Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The ITU SG's Report for WTPF-13
> <http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en> contains the following,
> page 8:
>
> o)	Today, the Internet is becoming “one of the basic commodities of
> life” and various studies have cited the information and knowledge
> provided over the Internet as examples of global public goods
>
> and this footnote from the para:
>
> “Knowledge as a Global Public Good”, Joseph Stiglitz, available at:
> http://cgt.columbia.edu/files/papers/1999_Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good_stiglitz.pdf.
> A chapter in Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization
> argues that telecommunications and the Internet are themselves global
> public goods; however, most observers agree that it is the knowledge
> and information provided over the Internet which are non-rivalrous and
> non-excludable, rather than the networks (which may be rivalrous and
> excludable). See also the ICT For Development Report (World Bank,
> 2009) and “Confronting the Crisis: ICT Stimulus Plans for Economic
> Growth” (ITU, 2009). (end quote)
>
>
> Expect at some point we will think about submitting comments to WTPF,
> this short para and footnote might be worth focusing on.
>
>
> Networks/access may be rivalrous and excludable.
> What runs over the Internet, non-rivalrous and non-excludable
> Critical internet resources, rivalrous and excludable.  And should be
> managed to minimize former, and if we hold this to be true "[Internet
> is becoming] one of the basic commodities of life" must be managed to
> prevent exclusion... which I think means we should re-write the "U.S.
> Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System" from
> June 2005, and then the IANA contract :-)
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I find Parminder’s definition of the Internet as both a common
>> (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good
>> (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid
>> discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to go
>> beyond its conceptual nature:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.                  Rosenzweig (2011), “Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The
>> Public/Private ‘Partnership’”,
>> http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf
>> (e.g., see  figure on p. 8), which defines the “early Internet” – as Avri
>> did below – as having been a commons.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.                  Bauer/van Eeten (2009), “Cybersecurity: Stakeholder
>> incentives, externalities, and policy options”, which argues – similar, but
>> not identical to Matthias’ argument – that cyber security “has strong public
>> good characteristics”. When applied to the Internet, this seems to me to be
>> sort of consistent with Anriette’s term “public-good-like”
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.                  I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this
>>
>>
>>
>> I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes good
>> sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote on
>> knowledge: “he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself
>> without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light
>> without darkening me.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I think Anriette’s point is quite interesting, holding that it
>> is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one thing'. But maybe
>> parts of it fall into one of the above categories?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Philipp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von michael
>> gurstein
>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann,
>> Matthias'
>> Cc: 'parminder'
>> Betreff: RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was,
>> Conflicts in Internet Governance
>>
>>
>>
>> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have
>> missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the
>> Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of
>> global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development
>> Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul.
>> (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant
>> covering much the same ground as is being covered here.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM
>>
>> To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'
>>
>> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good:
>> A Seasonal Wish to One and All:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for raising the issues that you do.  I`m not an economist but in
>> reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the
>> blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global
>> Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own
>> thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and
>> after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human
>> Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods.
>>
>>
>>
>> In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure``
>> counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would
>> have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among
>> others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what
>> she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these
>> with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of
>> global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe
>> that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest
>> approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf  (Note that I`ve
>> updated my GPG link in the blogpost.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette
>> Esterhuysen
>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias
>> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at)
>> Cc: parminder
>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was,
>> Conflicts in Internet Governance
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line
>>
>> Parminder)
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need
>> to have.
>>
>>
>>
>> Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we
>> need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social,
>> economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and
>> discussion and then come back to your proposed text.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good'
>>
>> people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these
>> seriously.  At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement
>> towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use.
>> Is that not what we want?  So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be
>> a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near
>> future.
>>
>>
>>
>> I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity.
>>
>> Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias:
>>
>>
>>
>> "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."
>>
>>
>>
>> It is conceptually interesting.  The internet is not 'just one thing', as
>> Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal
>> difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social,
>> economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity.
>>
>>
>>
>> We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists.
>>
>> But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and
>> advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or
>> will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to
>> consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the
>> 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS
>> documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary
>> not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to
>> different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are
>> referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain
>> a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector
>> entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias
>>
>> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>>

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