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

Tue Apr 16 10:32:01 EDT 2013

This may be one of the instances where the complexity of social
discourse/reality/phenomenon/experience legitimately diverges from the
productive simplicity of technical language and definitions (note: in case
that isn't enough clear, I mean simplicity in a positive way.) Obviously,
for the purposes of advocacy, social discourse and social science, we can't
just limit ourselves to a descriptive definition of Internet as a "network
of networks". First of all; there were before the Internet, and there still
are, networks of networks that are not Internet (e.g., of human beings).
Now, I understand the full definition quoted from Wikipedia specifies a lot
more than is in that one phrase, and I wouldn't object to that as a valid
definition.

However, concept definition is not always only a description of facts which
may qualify as either truth or false, exclusively, and nothing else. It can
also be, eg, purpose driven and sensitive to the discursive context (so
even the choice of facts, or characteristics, to be highlighted in a
definition can be framed depending of the purpose and/or the discoursive
context). The Wiki definition focuses on computer devices and the
architecture of their relationships; even where you have social structures
mentioned, they are not so for themselves or for their social purposes but
for being the origin or the scope of the computer networks thus set up and
connected. The user at large and the societal dimensions of the Internet
are totally absent here. To your defense (or rather to the defense of those
who coined that definition or more precisely the original definition that
led to this one), they were defining, and could only define, the Internet
in its architecture, as they were building it, and it wasn't their job to
anticipate on the social reality that it will become, which (as it has
become that, that is, that "emerging reality") is now as legitimate to
define what it is (partic. for social purposes), as its original technical
architecture is (partic. for technical purposes).

Re. the draft definition itself, though, while I agree that 'space' is
simpler than 'spatiality' and the value of the KISS precept (Keep It Simple
and Stupid), the latter says something more than the former, as spatiality
here does not just augment the social space as we know it, but enables new
kinds of interactions and transactions between humans, between machines and
between humans and machines. That being said, maybe the phrase "kind of
space" already conveys the idea "spatiality" (am not too sure, so I leave
this as a comment hoping it might contribute to clarify a little more.) I
also wonder whether it wouldn't be useful (I dare not say necessary) to add
something about computing capabilities or power ('hardware' or 'software'
alone does do it, does it?). I just feel like the fact that computers have
virtually limitless calculation power and storage capability for humans'
works, and are unforgetting, is part of that emerging social reality. I am
not sure how to phrase this right now (that would be in the second sentence
of the current draft definition which I'm just reproducing below with no
change, only for convenience). So I will leave it to someone more skillful
to try if they are so inclined.

We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality.
    As a global network of networks, it is an intricate combination of
    hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind
    of social space, brought together by a common set of design
    principles, and constrained by policies established by due
    democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons
    and a global public good. The design principles and policies that
    constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such
    recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good.

Best,

Mawaki

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Again, what I object to most is that I think we are defining a thing
> >> by its epiphenomenal characteristics.
> >
> > Suppose that a company X were to create a network of networks, possibly
> > TCP/IP based, but to some extent under the control of company X. For
> > example, the method by means of which company X retains control could
> > be that only networks operated by company X or its "certified partner
> > organizations" would be included in that network of networks.
>
>
> This happens frequently.
>
> >
> > The important difference to differentiate that kind of network from
> > what we call the Internet would be in the area of the epiphenomenal
> > characteristics, wouldn't it?
>
>
> Why wouldn't the type of Internetwork you describe also share some of
> those characteristics?
>
> >
> > In any case, what word should be used to refer to the global ICP/IP
> > based network of networks which currently exists together with its
> > epiphenomena? Most people use the word "Internet". If that is one of
> > the valid meanings of the word "Internet", then it is IMO appropriate
> > to write a definition which explains that meaning.
>
>
> When I sent the link to the Wikipedia definition, I had hoped that
> people would read it and include the entire first sentence (and perhsp
> the second:
>
> "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks
> that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve
> billions of users worldwide. It is a network of networks that consists
> of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government
> networks, of local to global scope, that are linked by a broad array
> of electronic, wireless and optical networking technologies. "
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130416/070df245/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