[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance
Lorena Jaume-Palasi
Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de
Mon Apr 15 15:59:53 EDT 2013
http://www.ingekaul.net/contacts/
Dr. Inge Kaul
Global Policy Studies
Niebuhrstr. 78
D-10629 Berlin
Germany
Tel
+49-30-887 09092
Email
contact at ingekaul.net
info at globalpolicystudies.net
Press Photo
Photo 1 Dr. Inge Kaul
Links
http://www.hertie-school.org
http://www.globalpublicgoods.org
http://www.thenewpublicfinance.org
http://www.gpgnet.net
Cheers,
Lorena
Am 2013-04-15 21:35, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
> Hi Anriette, I don't know her in person and wasn't aware that she
> lives in Berlin. If you have her contact details pls send them along.
> jeanette
>
> Am 15.04.13 12:15, schrieb Anriette Esterhuysen:
>> Dear Michael
>>
>> I do remember this. Thanks for the reminder. Inge does not dwell on
>> the
>> internet that much.. but raises really useful, and relevant
>> questions.
>>
>> APC has proposed a workshop on this topic for the IGF.
>>
>> Do you think there is any chance that we can get Inge Caul to attend
>> the
>> IGF to speak at this workshop? She might also be a good speaker for
>> one
>> of the main sessions on 'IG principles' if we have one.
>>
>> She is based in Berlin, Jeanette, Wolfgang... do you know her?
>>
>> Here is what she says about new definitions of public goods in the
>> paper Michael sent:
>>
>> "The analysis in this paper suggests that the present standard
>> definition of public
>> goods is of limited analytical, and therefore also, limited
>> practical-political value. This is
>> not a new insight. In effect, an extensive literature exists
>> critiquing
>> the standard
>> definition of public goods. But so far, no revised definition has
>> emerged. In part I of this
>> paper we will, therefore, attempt such a redefinition. The proposal
>> is
>> to require public
>> goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on
>> participatory
>> decision-making
>> (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in
>> the
>> distribution of benefits)."
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 15/04/2013 10:39, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> 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
>>> <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/towards-the-internet-as-a-global-public-good/>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> ( <mailto:matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>
>>> 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: <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> [ <mailto: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: <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> 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 < <mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>
>>>> diegocanabarro at gmail.com>< <mailto: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 <
>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch> nb at bollow.ch>< <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
>>>> mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry < <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
>>>> roland at internetpolicyagency.com><
>>>> <mailto: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:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org%3cmailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> Translate this email: <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> --
>>>> Diego R. Canabarro
>>>> <http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597>
>>>> 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 <mailto:anriette at apc.org> anriette at apc.org
>>>
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> <http://www.apc.org> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list