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

[Adam Peake]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Thanks Adam.. and I think you posted some of this previously as well.
>

I did (though the WTPF paper is now final not draft.)  And aiming to
have something for the WTPF would give a target of a kind, given the
statement in the paper, how do we respond?

Adam


> 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