[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[parminder]

On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 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)?

After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one way to go 
forward is to speak about "preserving and enhancing Internet's commons 
and public good nature" rather than declaring that the Internet is a 
commons and a public goods. This approach circumvents some of the 
problems expressed in this discussion, and makes it more aspirational 
(although based on some clearly established facts) rather than precisely 
definitional. Accordingly, I have modified the text as it last stood as 
follows.

Text as it stood:

    We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As
    a global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of
    hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind
    of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design
    principles, and constrained by policies established by due
    democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons
    and a global public good. The design principles and policies that
    constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such
    recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good.


Text as amended now:

    We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As
    a global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of
    hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind
    of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design
    principles, and constrained by policies established by due
    democratic processes.  The design principles and policies that
    constitute its governance should principally aim at preserving and
    enhancing the global commons and global public goods character of
    the Internet.


We may add, or not, the following, in order to make clearer the nature 
of the problems that we are trying to address:

There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the non-excludablity 
of the Internet (through a new kind of 'enclosure movement 
<http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/enclosure+movement>'* of the 
digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness (through excessive 
commodification), which should be stemmed.

(* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, and sought to be 
undone by, contemporary occupy movements)

(text suggestion ends)

parminder

>
> 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 
> <mailto: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>
>     [mailto: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
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
>
>     *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
>
>     *From:*michael gurstein [mailto: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 <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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130418/357453f3/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