[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
Chaitanya Dhareshwar
chaitanyabd at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 00:43:32 EDT 2013
I honestly thought that line was a joke and ignored it
-C
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 16 April 2013 09:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations.
>>
>
> I publicly object to the manner in which Avri is repeatedly personalising
> a political debate based on facts and reasons that I am trying to have....
> This is the second time in the last few days that she has 'congratulated'
> me for 'getting her', which follows her extremely ad hominem declaration
> that i rule the list and everyone else runs scared, which follows her
> repeated use of the contemptuous term 'gotcha' for my reasoned propositions
> presented to the list..... Such pattern of personalisation of political
> debates is rather consistent here, and as can be seen in the above
> instance sets up a provocation for problematic loops of exchanges.
>
> parminder
>
> On the other hand:
>>
>> You are right, I do not object to amazon or others using words for their
>> own purposes. I do not see this as trademarking, in fact it is quite
>> different than a trademark.
>>
>> To be honest I prefer that they will be using for internal purposes that
>> using it to make money. Or in the public good as the GAC puts - funny how
>> they see amazon making money with it better that seeing it used in house.
>>
>> In any case, I also do not see top level names as having any greater
>> ownership of a piece of the commons than I see in second level names.
>> True, until other names authorities assert themselves it looks like there
>> is only one possibility for a top level domain name of book, but I do not
>> beleive the false monopoly of a single domain authority will last for very
>> much longer. Other roots exists and sooner or later one of them is going
>> to give the ICANn name authority a run for its money. And eventually we
>> will learn how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority
>> of a name, and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more
>> flexible.
>>
>> In my view it is only a temporary artifact of the way the technology is
>> being used that the coincidental juxtaposition of the letters b o o k,
>> which resemble a word in one script in one language in one namespace is a
>> unique thing.
>>
>> But I like the way we are having the discussion in ICANN, and if the
>> issue were to go through a proper ICANN multistakeholder policy development
>> process and were to reach rough consensus that .book should not be given
>> to a single application unless they were a community of book lovers I would
>> not be displeased - as long as it was a consensus of the stakeholders and
>> not a fiat that the GAC was trying to make the Board impose from above. I
>> have a lot of issues within ICANN at the moment in the way the
>> multistakeholder process seems to be being circumvented by governments and
>> the IP industry. And I object to that more than I object to Amazon's use
>> of the letters b o o k as a TLD.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 15 Apr 2013, at 22:43, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the
>>>> Internet:
>>>>
>>>> - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general.
>>>>
>>>> Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed
>>> generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please
>>> correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government
>>> Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed
>>> generic tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public
>>> purpose is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I
>>> think will cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a
>>> closed tlds to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a
>>> clear instance whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process
>>> miserably failed to prevent theft on the Internet and governments have
>>> intervened to stop such theft. (The only comment you have made on this
>>> recent GAC communiqué which took this important step to stop theft on the
>>> Internet is of, to quote you recent email " government wanting ICANN to get
>>> into the content regulation business")
>>>
>>> And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts,
>>> please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which
>>> governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD
>>> Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on
>>> and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by
>>> participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based
>>> bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been
>>> involved........
>>>
>>> - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some
>>>> regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy
>>>>
>>> This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a
>>> great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector
>>> (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government
>>> control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT
>>> in the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service
>>> obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage
>>> obligations.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Apr 2013, at 14:52, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Anriette for a very useful commentary and Avri for raising the
>>>>> issue...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is of course, the contemporary (?) debate as to whether to refer
>>>>> to issues such as the management of water supplies as a "management of a
>>>>> commons" or as a "management of a public good"... In both formulations of
>>>>> course, there are inbuilt assumptions--in the first instance, that of the
>>>>> "commons" there is an assumption that the structure of
>>>>> governance/management is occuring in some sort of context where no existing
>>>>> governance/management structures are already in place and thus means must
>>>>> found to create these; which, as Anriette points to, should be such as to
>>>>> satisfy the (legitimate?) needs of all parties. In the latter case that of
>>>>> the "public good", there is the assumption of the pre-existence of a
>>>>> "public" and thus of some form of governance structures which repesent at
>>>>> some level the collective will of that public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those of an anti-government/anti-State bent will clearly opt for the
>>>>> former formulation while those without such a bias will potentially opt for
>>>>> either depending on the specifics of the circumstance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether in our context the Internet is seen as a "commons" or as a
>>>>> "public good" may thus perhap simply be a matter of taste (or
>>>>> political/ideological pre-disposition).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, a decision around this may also be associated with issues
>>>>> such as assessments of the role of power--economic, political, social--in
>>>>> the context of governance. One of the major challenges facing those who opt
>>>>> to see the Internet as a commons is how to deal with issues of power
>>>>> differentials within that commons. Avri in her disquisition pointed to
>>>>> the power of the State in abrogating the extent of the commons but
>>>>> interestingly she failed to mention the role of private corporations in
>>>>> similarly parcelling out and limiting the extent of the commons and perhaps
>>>>> more importantly the capacity of the commons to self-manage its affairs in
>>>>> contexts where the private sector is already acting/has power. (To use
>>>>> Anriette's example what happens when the water supply is already in whole
>>>>> or in part privatized, how then to treat it as a commons in the absence of
>>>>> State power?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Any discussion of the Internet as a commons must IMHO as a basic and
>>>>> defining issue deal with how in an Internet treated as a commons, the
>>>>> differential power of the various actors will be
>>>>> managed/controlled/equalized (?). It is again IMHO totally insufficient to
>>>>> present the Internet as a commons as a paradigm for matters of Internet
>>>>> Governance and specifically as a solution to presumed overweening attempts
>>>>> at control by States without equally dealing with matters of actual
>>>>> patterns of control over significant elements of the Internet by
>>>>> unaccountable private corporations and individual States pursuing their own
>>>>> specific self-interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> One reason to opt for a paradigm of the Internet as a global public
>>>>> good is precisely because within that model are conceptual elements and
>>>>> strategies for managing/controlling the role of otherwise unaccountable
>>>>> private sector actors and equally that of rogue States which choose to
>>>>> ignore the role of the global interest in the pursuit of local/national
>>>>> interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether some commons/publc good hybrid model is possible where
>>>>> concerns with respect to government control (as for example with respect to
>>>>> Freedom of Expression) and parallel concerns with respect to private
>>>>> control or individual national control (as for example in ensuring the
>>>>> public interest in matters such as privacy, equality in the distribution of
>>>>> opportunities to realize benefits, and so on) can be mutually accommodated
>>>>> is perhaps our most important task in this context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From:
>>>>> governance-request at lists.**igcaucus.org<governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:
>>>>> governance-request@**lists.igcaucus.org<governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:59 AM
>>>>> To:
>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
>>>>>
>>>>> 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@**internetpolicyagency.com<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<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/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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<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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email:
>>>>> http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>> 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<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/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.**com/translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130416/99ee4229/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list