[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

[Kerry Brown]

> I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also.

I believe the question was about what I believe the definition of the Internet is. The discussion since then has moved on to things like commons and public good. I believe those types of concepts describe things that may be part of Internet governance but they are not the Internet. For me the Internet is a communications medium that allows communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to communicate with all other endpoints. Currently this is accomplished by interconnected computer networks that use common protocols to communicate between endpoints. In the future this may not be the case. The protocols used and the content of the communications are ephemeral and may change. The concept of communicating with all endpoints being equal is the key. How it is accomplished is important. It requires governance to ensure equality and efficiency. Internet governance is the attempt to make sure whatever system is in use at the time achieves the goal of communications as effectively as possible while ensuring all endpoints have equal opportunity to communicate.

Kerry Brown

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: April-14-13 9:37 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance
> 
> In message
> <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82398DB3 at EXCH01.KDBSystems.loc
> al>, at
> 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com> writes
> >> The Internet is a collection of routers, cables and peering agreements.
> >
> >This is the heart of many debates on Internet governance. If you ask a
> technologist "What is the Internet?" the above is often their answer. If
> >you ask an Internet user you will probably get a very different answer. It will
> often be their ISP, the web, Google, Facebook, or something
> >similar. The technology aspect of how the Internet works is rarely
> considered by them. Many government officials have a poor understanding
> of
> >the issues and are often in the unsophisticated Internet user category and
> react accordingly. This causes a lot of problems because when people
> >talk about Internet governance they rarely have the same definition of the
> Internet. This guarantees there will be conflicts.
> 
> All of this is true. My day-job is trying to bridge that divide, reduce
> the conflicts etc.
> 
> >Managing those conflicts is what the multi-stakeholder model is all about.
> 
> And briefing the stakeholders is what I'm all about.
> 
> >Governments have a hard time grasping this concept as they are used to
> being in charge and don't understand they are merely one party at the
> >table.
> 
> (Although most governments do notice there are others at the table).
> 
> But here, on the IGC list, what I'm attempting to do (for the sake of
> avoiding any misunderstanding) is discovering what the various
> correspondents understand to be "the Internet", upon which they wish "no
> government interference".
> 
> I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also.
> 
> Then we'll all get on a lot better, rather than talking past one another
> all the time.
> 
> ps If anyone knows what the US House of Representative's draftsman means
> by "the Internet", that would very helpful too.
> --
> Roland Perry


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