[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Norbert Bollow]

Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks
> comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and
> emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate
> combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human
> intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and
> transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles,
> and policies established through due democratic processes.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] assuming that historical accuracy matters, and
> depending on what “policies” one is referring to, I don’t think
> “democratic” process was involved in the origin of the internet at
> all. The IETF developers were meritocratic, not democratic.

Even if IETF's processes do not follow the traditional patterns
of democracy (in particular, they do not involve voting, and they make
it hard for non-techies to participate) really the only major hurdles
to effective participation in the decision-making processes that have
been shaping the Internet (in the sense of the communication
network, not talking about the broader sense of "Internet" right now
that includes the epiphenomenon) have been willingness to engage and
having a sufficient understanding of the subject matter under discussion
to actually understand the suggestions and the relevant arguments.

The technical development of the Internet in its significant early
formative stage was not driven by special interest type business
interests, but by people who truly care about what I'd call the public
interest.

In my view, those processes have been democratic in a very strong
sense. Possibly even much more democratic than the processes of
real-world parliamentary democracy are on average.

It is important and significant that the major formative development
of the Internet (after and beyond the initial work under the umbrella
the US department of defense) was largely independent of any direct
role of the state besides exercising the freedoms that are available in
a democratic society (it being, IMO at least, the primary role of the
democratic state to ensure the continued availability of these and
related freedoms.)

I'm pretty sure that the Internet (again using the word in reference
to the communication network, not the epiphenomenon) couldn't possibly
have been developed in a totalitarian state.

Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the
processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern
democratic societies; even if many of these laws do not explicitly
reference the Internet, more and more of the various processes related
to doing business and to living in a democratic society rely on the
Internet in some way.

Going forward, we need to make sure that these two forms of governance
will not become incompatible with each other and will not create
incompatible results.

And perhaps most importantly, we need to make sure to avoid a future in
which key aspects of the rules and principles that effectively govern
society are decided neither by processes of parliamentary democracy nor
by other processes that can also reasonably be accepted as democratic
(such as the typical processes of IETF, the RIRs, etc) but by the
business interests and economic power of a small number of global
companies. IMO one major cause for concern is that all too often, the
"principle of multistakeholder governance" is promoted in a way that is
not at all incompatible with the quite anti-democratic potential future
of giving economically powerful companies effectively a veto right on
all rules that would affect them. Such "multistakeholder principle"
based de-regulation of economically powerful Internet-based businesses
would given them the opportunity to reshape societies according to
their business interests, while effectively rendering even democratic
parliaments powerless to do anything about it.

This is a human rights issue; specifically, the human right of the
peoples to democratic self-determination is endangered here.

Greetings,
Norbert

** Acronyms:
IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force
RIR=Regional Internet Registry
IMO=in my opinion

-- 
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