[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: Free (the) Machines!

Tue Apr 16 13:44:31 EDT 2013

If I may agree and disagree with Milton...and introduce a virtual dimension to the draft expanded new definition.

First, Internet standards such as IETF RFCs for sure fit classic public good definitions.....others too can be defined as a public good or common resource, along with various bits of open code keeping the thing humming.   For example, I quote from the Apache Software Foundation website:

The Apache Software Foundation provides support for the Apache community of open-source software projects, which provide software products for the public good.

Even if most of us IGCers rarely think about the 100 open source projects of the Apache community, those good folks are doing a lot of the grunt labor keeping the net humming.   Explicitly for the public good.

Meaning in sum, (certain) open source projects are pretty fundamental to the net and are self-aware there is a public good dimension to their work; and at least in some instances they explicitly define themselves as - doing this for the public good.

Having said all that, I must nonetheless speak up for my fellow academics; since it is ok to define new terms, and redefine old terms.

But I would suggest it is better or IGC to acknowledge and explicitly address why/how 'the (redefined) Internet' is the same as, similar to, and distinct from accepted academic definitions.  Hence linking explicitly into the Inge/Stiglitz dialogues makes sense to me, and is more productive than the continual name-calling everyone seems to be doing these days on the list...sigh.

Anyway, next point: 

As to 

"Internet
> services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in
> consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private
> goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand
> the definition of public goods and commons and the economic
> characteristics of these resources or you don’t. 

We might add some nuance and say that...

" <MOST> Internet
> services, AND web sites, etc. are private goods; they are TYPICALLY both rival in
> consumption and excludable. MOST Internet access facilities are private
> goods.

Since as Jeanette notes there are exceptions, and areas in which what matters is not the public or private good, but the ready ability to combine and utilize both.  

Next comment: since on the current/future Internet there are more machines than people, I now speak up for the oppressed majority of machines comprising and on the network of networks:

"We (machines) are tired of the hegemonic oppression of the people and wish to ensure that Non-Person Entities have equal standing in future conversations and definitions of what the Internet is, and is not." 

(yes that was a - machine translation ; )

Non-Person Entities encompass - things - as in Internet of Things; and Virtual Services, Applications, and Content.

Seriously, since the present and Future Internet includes many more NPEs than people, we should ensure whatever Internet definition we come up with, recognizes all and not just some NPEs - on and/or around, and/or working to enable the Internet.

Meaning, the 'network of networks' definition of the Internet is still true; but if we are expanding the definition then we should recognize the virtual presence of all <oppressed> NPEs I mean happy to do the grunt labor of our <superiors> I mean us people.

And before Parminder or others ask, I readily confess that 'Non-Person Entities' may be yet another US DOD invention as a term, not sure. It is also in growing use in enterprise IT circles. Hey what can you do.  Except - free the machines? ; )

Finally I note that my friends the Non-Person Entities may indeed all be equal on the net, even if some are working to support or are themselves defined as a public good, and others are in it for the money as private goods.

In sum, if this reasoning is accepted, (if not my jokes appreciated), then the next draft can incorporate the points made above re not forgetting about NPEs, whether public goods or private goods.

Lee   

PS: I addressed some of these points for a joint NSF/OECD workshop about six years ago, in a short paper 'The Future of the Internet is Not the Internet.' You can google.

________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:34 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

Hi Milton,

websites are rival in consumption? How so.

If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction
between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and private
goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can change
depending on circumstances. It is not just the good itself but also its
context that determines a good's position on the public/private range.
Thus, to some degree people can shape the publicness or privateness of a
given good. This is why I think such debates are good to have.

jeanette

Am 16.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Milton L Mueller:
> Parminder:
>
> Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate
> notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public
> good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago.
> If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this.
>
> The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can
> accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet
> services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in
> consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private
> goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand
> the definition of public goods and commons and the economic
> characteristics of these resources or you don’t.
>
> Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as
> common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of
> domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but
> may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what
> works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is.
>
> It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are
> commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim
> is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and
> the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make
> it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous
> policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One
> should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political
> economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around.
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* [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
>
>
>

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