[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

Fri Apr 19 00:44:35 EDT 2013

Parminder,
Thanks for the clarification of the intent. I am not against that at all,
but there seemed to be a confusion, or different ideas about what we want
to achieve, and my and your clarification, among others, seem to make this
point clearer.

Yes, I meant it was a "working definition" during WGIG, and similar to
that, y/our effort of making the definition of the Internet as civil
society is our kind of working definition.

izumi

2013/4/19 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
> 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>
>
>>  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>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>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>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130419/69695cd6/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