[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Sat Apr 20 04:17:50 EDT 2013
Lee
I think you suggestion of ecosystem is pretty useful for a more
expansive definition.
But I must admit I do prefer working at different levels of abstraction
as it would represent the fractions/parts of the major differences
amongst views. The precision provided by KBs definition is very
important, and should not be diluted in any process - it is the /nuts
and bolts'/ hard stuff of the net.
However, I take a different view of the dangers alluded to by KB
regarding an expansive definition, that it would limit innovation in the
future. First, I do not think much can be anticipated about the dynamic
phenomenon (aside from corporate enclosure), and hence these are at best
functional definitions. Second, the danger is probably the other way
around. A specific and narrow definition may achieve precision at the
price of relevance.
It is plain that there are two major different worldviews that shape our
discussions (with nuance within each, etc). I do not think that we
should try to harmonise what is evidently something that both strong and
solid reasons justify either side. When we create two streams, on one
level it is about splitting civil society or the caucus. On another
level it is about civil society that has differences, an which through
an iterative or discursive process brings this to bear on specific and
particular policy issues. Now this definition does not cover all aspects
of differences, but it is one we have had 'bun fights' over for the
longest time, it is recurrent, divisive and was not conducive to the
wonderful tenor we now seem to be developing on this list. If we differ
at the level of first principles (from which we derive different
specific policy proposals) then it will help us later on. Harmony should
not be confused with managing diversity, it is the goal or end point of
civil society. As such, I do hope we can maintain the differences so
that we are clear on where we differ and do not have to have unnecessary
arguments - first principle views are hard to reconcile and become
almost intractable on specific policy issues. And these paragraphs are
preamble type aspirations, functional 'definitions' and have great room
for discretion on both sides (they do need further work) in particular
concrete policy debates.
I would strongly suggest that we ride this wave of 'diversity
management' in an open way. Since no one is effectively excluded, and as
it typical in these types of documents, because of their softer nature,
I do hope we can sharpen some of the fractures (which are more
method/focus than substance) so that each side can deepen (which is what
consensus building or confrontational approaches weaken) the analysis.
Riaz
On 2013/04/20 01:28 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Got to run so just quick comments:
>
> Re:
> "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."
>
> Comment: I understand merit of embedding end to end principle into
> definition; but am not sure it buys us that much at soundbite level
> over basic technical terminology of a 'network of networks.'
>
> 2nd comment: for the more expansive tightened version, maybe the word
> <ecosystem> should be added after Internet, in 2nd sentence. To make
> clear that it is not just the present net of nets being spoken of.
>
> And of course new species and mutations are implied to be expected, in
> that phraseology, hence no limiting future innovation.
>
> Lee
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Riaz K Tayob
> [riaz.tayob at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2013 6:19 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
>
> 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
>> <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130420/5030def1/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