[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Apr 17 10:54:44 EDT 2013
I agree with Jeanette that the publicness and privateness of a good is a
matter of degrees. It not only depends, as she says, on the context, but
also on the ideology of the beholder. Ideology is a political fact,
despite Milton's desperate attempts to sepetar scientific social 'facts'
from matters of political ideology and then going right deep into
ideology to defend the 'facts' formulated by him. (BTW I also know that
Milton holds it as a 'fact' that social and economic rights are actually
not rights but matters of policy and only civil and political rights are
in 'fact' rights. So much so for 'facts' versus ideology.) Human rights
themself represent an ideology. There is no factual basis for them
although I am happy to be proved wrong.
The fact of the relativeness of the public good character of the
communication infrastructure can be judged from how its public-good-ness
is right now sought to be greatly diminished if not abolished by telcos
in the US by bringing in laws in state after state for complete
deregulation of the communication infrastructure. This is the kind of
real policy implications that defining Internet as a commons and a
public good or not entails. And that is a political position to take -
based on some facts, but still a political position. Based on the same
set of facts someone else - Milton and AT & T for instance, may take
exactly the opposite position.
Therefore, while it certainly need a good and a continued discussion
here, it is also a matter of political ideology that the caucus may seek
to either profess or not. I remember at least 2-3 occasions in the last
few years that this group had a long discussion on the public goods
character of the Internet. (once after Pablo Accuosto did a paper for
APC on Internet as a public good.) As Anriette says for herself, indeed
seeking to consider the Internet as a commons/ public good is basically
aspirational for all those who so seek. We seek to reduce the
excludability from basic Internet functionalities and its
rivalrous-ness, both of which are increasingly being enhanced. Such
enhancement of excludability and rivalrousness of Internet's
functionality is taking place right now - encroachment on universal
service obligations, laws in the US against local authorities providing
public wifi networks, and net neutrality are some examples....Even
standards are getting privatised, as means to draw perpetual rent. All
this is the biggest damage being done to the Internet as we wish to
envisage it.
Consequently, if the caucus has to take a stand in these matters, but
presenting a foundational principle of treating the Internet as a
commons and a public good, that should inform Internet policy making,
the time to do it is now. It cannot be infinitely postponed. Perhaps
over the last one decade we have already postponed it beyond its expiry
date. Anyway, currently, there are some international processes like the
WTPF and the WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on Internet related public
policies) which may be the right place to contribute any foundational
principle for Internet related public policy. OECD has contributed some
'Principles for Internet Policy Making' whose most distinctive feature
is to enhance creation od private property on the Internet and its over
zealous protection including through use of means that are patently
inappropriate per classical jurisprudence (through use of private
intermediaries). Now if civil society has to contribute any principle(s)
for Internet policy making that seeks to safeguard and promote the
commons and public goods nature of the Internet, it will be need to be
done now. We can debate it here for a few days, but cant debate it
endlessly. Finally, either we do it or we dont. It is a matter of
political conviction as much of finding the right facts, Sufficient
effort although should certainly be made to get the facts right, for, as
Anriette says, making our definition/ principle robust enough.
parminder
On Wednesday 17 April 2013 05:28 PM, William Drake wrote:
> +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 esterhuysenanriette 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130417/f176c952/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