[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
William Drake
william.drake at uzh.ch
Wed Apr 17 07:58:05 EDT 2013
+1 for substantive conversations
On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I am with Jeanette here... these debates are good to have precisely
> because distinctions between different types of goods are sometimes
> blurred and old definitions are challenged by new, and complex 'things'
> like the internet .
>
> I am quite aware of that many people feel that the idea of the internet
> is a public good is 'wrong'. I respect these views, which is why I think
> we need to explore this debate further. My perspective is also one that
> is aspirational... so, perhaps the internet is not currently defined as
> as a public good... but why can it not be defined as such in the future?
>
> What I think we are ultimately looking for is a definition that can be
> used to frame legal, regulatory and policy decisions... so it does have
> to be robust - so the debate now is essential.
>
> Common pool resources is a very interesting and helpful concept to add
> to this discussion. But do look at Inge Kaul's article, Milton (the link
> was sent by Michael Gurstein). It is really interesting. It would be
> good to hear what you think of it.
>
> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On 16/04/2013 17:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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