[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Mawaki Chango]

So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on as to where we
want to go wrt to the issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, seeking a
conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the
internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently proposed draft definition
of the internet in a related thread does not have to be presented as THE
definition of THE concept of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be
considered aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will tell how
pertinent that framing might be. Why shouldn't we be able to do that,
especially since we all seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet
includes public as well as private aspects/components (and, as Parminder
notes, we're witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness which is of
importance in our view)?

Related to that and more generally (and building on Jeanette's pertinent
observation), why do we seem to assume sometimes that government has the
monopoly of publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with government
advocates)? I would wish to have a clarification once for all on this list
about that. Who is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public interest? Is
it only the government? Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS also about
the "public"? And yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even often, improve
the conditions and circumstances of the public? (But is there any such
thing as pure market, without any help of public concern? I would argue no,
just as many governments, eg, in the US and in Brazil, routinely show that
government may be willing to take private money and undermine itself.)

So (in line with the idea that private and public are the opposite ends of
a spectrum) the question is: Under what conditions, and maybe to what
extent, do actors other than governments contribute to the "public" (public
good, public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public etc.)? Does
anyone know of a conceptual framework that may be pragmatically useful, and
may be set as a reference on the matter, in these debates of ours? That
would be really helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating
challengers into a sterile categorization government vs. business, public
vs. private.

One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific truths, we can
look at history in different ways or at different levels: Yes, history
shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, instances where governments
failed the public interest and private business delivered more good to the
public. Does that mean private business has always succeeded anytime,
everywhere? What about private business success vs. private business
failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? History may also show
that there are some conditions under which private business fails (and
fails gravely the community that has made them possible), and other
conditions under which they succeed both as business in the narrow sense
(re. bottom line) and as social actors. The truth in these social matters
is often temporal and contextual by several other dimensions. Indeed, the
fact that certain market liberalization has proved to be so successful in
the late 20th century in the US and in Western Europe, for example, may or
may not be totally unrelated with the fact that those markets were
previously protected during decades through monopoly or various
protectionism regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) facts
of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We will have
to be more nuanced on that spectrum spanning from private to public,
putting the facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the
sociohistorical context.

Best,

Mawaki


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a
> political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah
> blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a
> discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone
> else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in
> pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic
> environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but
> to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world
> except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <gurstein at gmail.com>]
> ****
>
> And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related
> issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development
> Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public
> goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional
> classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy
> geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those
> looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who
> would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized
> interests. ****
>
> * *
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly
> admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real
> scientific basis for your claim. *
>
> * *
>
> *I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about
> the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use?
> Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to
> derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and
> say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and
> regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change
> things for the better?*
>
> * *
>
> *If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others
> who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face
> is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led
> to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant
> deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the
> rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70
> years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted
> development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods
> of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still
> countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least
> accessible internet sectors. *
>
> * *
>
> *I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive
> anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in
> country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that
> reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest
> sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public
> good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must
> hurt. Deal with it. *
>
> * *
>
> *Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try
> to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. *
>
> * *
>
> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of
> redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one,
> and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the
> possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better
> to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as
> one that at a minimum accommodates such notions.****
>
> * *
>
> *[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the
> internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons,
> common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven
> spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the
> Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private,
> competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened,
> because it worked. *
>
> * *
>
> *Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to
> understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science,
> actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public
> good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what
> happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the
> equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically,
> testing whether they actually conform to reality. *
>
> * *
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130417/4f08f790/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