[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Apr 19 00:39:27 EDT 2013
On Friday 19 April 2013 06:44 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> I was late to join this very interesting debate, but like to share my
> thoughts.
>
> First of all, "facts" or "reality" and "principle" or "definition" are
> not the same thing in my view.
>
> The fact that telecom is liberalized and operated by private companies
> does not always
> mean that the definition of telecom is totally departed from public
> good/service/ or common
> and became private good period. They are rather relative things not
> static and fixed, as Jeanette rightly points out.
>
> I think privatization and introducing fair market competition to
> former monopoly would result in
> better "public" service in a larger view was the principle idea behind
> the liberalization of the telecom, and as indicated in some countries,
> there have been universal service obligation still exercised
> (including in my country) with government regulation. So facts and
> ideas or principles could be on different layers.
>
> Second, as we all know, "Internet" is consisted of different layers,
> or set of networks.
> We may have different understanding of what is Internet, or which
> layer of Internet -
> by devices, (open and common) protocols, access services, or
> end-services, which may
> lead different level of (non-)excludability.
>
>
> Just making a single, simple definition might lead to an ambiguous
> phrase that mean not much, I am afraid. Remembering the working
> definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG days.
Izumi
WGIG sought a definition of Internet governance to be able to make
progress on what and how of IG... All such efforts are contextual and
with different purposes. Here, with IGC, the effort is not to
define the Internet or IG, but to set up a basic advocacy principle on
which side of what is happening, or what could happen, to the Internet
would we like to put their weight on..... It is civil society's vision
of the directions that the Internet should evolve in, and alternatively,
not go towards....
parminder
>
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2013/4/19 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>>
>
> Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in the first
> sentence, and in the last sentence, "global Internet *governance*
> agenda" plus slight improvements. The previous option 2 then reads:
>
> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of
> networks comprised of computing devices and processes, but also an
> emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an
> intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human
> intentionality enabling new kind of social interactions and
> transactions, which is brought together by a common set of design
> principles, and stirred by policies established through due
> democratic processes. While the design principles and policies
> that constitute its governance should ensure its stability,
> functionality and security, they must also aim at preserving and
> enhancing the global commons and global public good character of
> the Internet [which has made previous innovations possible*].
> Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet
> experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces,
> we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's
> global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of
> global Internet governance agenda going forward.
>
> [...*] to be added as you see appropriate.
>
> mc
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com
> <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to 'constrained by
> policies..., Adding a few changes I suggest the following
> version of the statement:
>
> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of
> networks comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but
> also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense,
> it is an 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 stirred by policies established through due
> democratic processes. While the design principles and policies
> that constitute its governance should ensure its stability,
> functionality and security, they must also aim at preserving
> and enhancing the global commons and global public good
> character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the
> Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary
> spaces, we urge that the global commons and global public good
> dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet agenda going
> forward.
>
> Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...:
>
> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of
> networks comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but
> also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense,
> it is an intricate combination of hardware, software,
> protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of social
> interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a
> common set of design principles, and stirred by policies
> established through due democratic processes. While the design
> principles and policies that constitute its governance should
> ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must
> also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and
> global public good character of the Internet. In the face of
> the danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed
> or proprietary spaces, we urge that the global commons and
> global public good dimensions be at the forefront of global
> Internet agenda going forward.
>
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130419/f14afcb9/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