[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Kerry Brown]

Defining the Internet rather narrowly as the medium doesn't preclude governing how the medium is used. Defining the medium in an abstract way allows us to discuss the governance of how the medium is used without being constrained by what the medium currently is. We can make policy decisions about things like commons and public good that are not limited because they reference a concrete thing that may change and invalidate the policy.

Kerry Brown

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: April-20-13 5:17 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
> 
> Kerry Brown <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."
> 
> One may nitpick about details like measures that force consumer PCs to send
> mail via their ISP's mailserver rather than running an MTA that will connect
> directly to port 25 on the recipient's mailserver, but apart that kind of thing,
> this IMO describes one of the meanings of the term "Internet" quite well.
> 
> However the term "Internet" can also refer to this communications medium
> together with its current patterns of usage, etc., including the entirety of
> what has been called the "ephiphenomenon". I think that we need a working
> definition of that meaning of the term "Internet" also -- one that
> corresponds to the WGIG definition of "Internet governance".
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I would suggest that the lack of a useful definition for the conception of the
> Internet that encompasses all relevant aspects of the commons/ public good
> perspective on the Internet is a problem that stifles innovation in public
> policy oriented conceptions right now.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> ** Acronyms used:
> ISP = Internet Service Provider
> MTA = Message Transport Agent
> IMO = In My Opinion
> WGIG= Working Group on Internet Governance
> 
> --
> Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:
> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2.
> Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept


-------------- 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