[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Riaz K Tayob]

Mawaki et al

I think we have to operate at multiple levels of abstraction, and let 
the matter have some of these dynamics particularly in the exploratory 
stage; the broader social 'definition' (conception) vs the specific 
'definition' (conception).

 From my perspective, not to speak for KB, I think there is some value 
in having functional understandings/approaches/worldviews/definitions 
for 'the Internet'. Issues are technical. These can define the realm of 
possibility - no VOIP layer then that feature is not possible or rather 
constrained by the technical. So there IS a set of technical elements as 
the KB definition poses, which forms one small bubble. The is also the 
social constructivist type (poor term, but it suffices) approaches that 
sees a "regulatory" (formal, informal rules of the 'game', or 
institutional forms) which is another bubble. The difficulty comes for 
both bubbles at the fringes/edges and also where they overlap (overlap 
in the sense that Lessig means, where the technical is regulatory - 
single root under ICANN eg; bearing in mind the regulatory can also be 
technical - legal rights to go in and fix or debug elements of the 
hardware). Bubbles at the mid level of abstraction.

Having a clear approach on what is included in the KB type proposal, I 
think it would delineate more clearly what is understood/felt to be in 
the technical realm (with its own engineering particularities imposing 
limits on what is possible. Reliance on this would make clear 
differences in diagnosis and prescription. The value of the KB proposal 
is that it sets feasible technical realms of possibility. With this 
clear we can all benefit from this type of clarity, recognising as I do 
the Lessig notion of the overlap. There are technical elements that have 
governance implications that point to specific advantages (from 
mid-level of abstraction analysis) regarding small specialised competent 
country registries, the subsidiarity and decentralisation and 
integration that goes with it, that are functional to the technical itself.

So, WHERE RELEVANT, the one 'definition' presuppose the other. It would 
go a long way to curing the interminable debates on what we mean (and we 
oft mean different things, and come from diverse worldviews) by 
Internet, the specific technical (although not completely limited to 
that, if where relevant we recognise the sets/bubbles) of the overall 
conception of the internet governance space (including multiple 
stakeholders) holistically. Just in terms of scope, from the WSIS 
documents, we have a huge menu of issues, and it simply means we DO need 
to operate at multiple levels of abstraction.

My suggestion is that both 'definitions' be worked in parallel with some 
sort of framing so that discussion and process wise we are more precise 
and clear.

Thoughts?

Riaz



On 2013/04/20 12:45 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Kerry,
>
> My understanding is that we have given up defining the Internet per se 
> (so we're not going to present this as our definition of the 
> Internet). Therefore the focus is now on the purpose of this endeavor 
> (which again is not to define the Internet and which I believe has 
> abundantly been made clear by Parminder) while avoiding any factual 
> inaccuracy --and maybe those two things should constitute good enough 
> measure of our acceptance. To that end, it's meaningful that the 
> statement starts with "We recognise..." and not "Internet is..."
>
> Were we on the same page and am I just laboring the point?
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Kerry Brown <kerry at kdbsystems.com 
> <mailto:kerry at kdbsystems.com>> wrote:
>
>     I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've
>     been quiet so far because I wanted to see where it was going
>     before speaking up. I think the attempt to define the Internet as
>     anything more than a communications medium will be too limiting at
>     some future date. I would prefer something very simple like:
>
>     "The Internet is a communications medium that allows
>     communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in
>     their potential to communicate with all other endpoints."
>
>     This does not limit any future changes to the way the
>     communications happen or what is communicated. Trying to include
>     content and purpose may at some point limit innovation. Defining
>     the Internet this way doesn't exclude us from discussing content,
>     commons vs. public good etc. It just ensures that the medium
>     itself is separate from what the medium is used for. Both will
>     change over time. If they are linked by definition it may stifle
>     innovation.
>
>     Kerry Brown
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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/20130420/afc7b225/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