[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Apr 19 02:23:38 EDT 2013
On Friday 19 April 2013 10:14 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> 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, Izumi, exactly so. Thanks...
Meanwhile, for the attention of the co-coordinators, there seems to be
good level of general approval for the IGC adopting some text on the
commons and the public good nature of the Internet, but there is still
some degree of lack of clarity abut what should be in such a text and
what not (although Mawaki's current text looks very promising to me)
Can we perhaps adopt some kind of a rough procedure - maybe an online
vote - to get the sense of the house first on whether people at all want
any kind of text on 'commons and public goods nature of the Internet'
adopted or not....
and then when, and if, we know that such is the general will of the
group, we can proceed to drafting the text, and then put it up for a
consensus/ rough consensus call... or alternatively, we can directly put
the Mawaki's text, with a few possible modifications in the next few
days to the consensus/ rough consensus process.
Just for your consideration
parminder
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130419/75cffcfe/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