[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Mawaki Chango]

Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the
order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics.
I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive
difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific
phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the
comprehension.

"through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes
involving all stakeholders". [McTim]

vs.

"through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and
involve all stakeholders." [Parminder]

Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up,
transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all
stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add.

Furthermore...

*The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure
its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and
enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the
Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible.
Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to
be reduced to closed or ***

*[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at
preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the
success of the  internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are
we emphasizing only one aspect of this? *

*proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement
of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions***

*[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why
not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and
creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to
experiment and innovate with new private services? *
I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above.
You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they
tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of
tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things
become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry
barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already
been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a
healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the
creative combination you're talking about.

As to the question about determining the global commons and global public
good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the
same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be
expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and
global public good character".

Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design
principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its
stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason
why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a
sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the
salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to
the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating
some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has
been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but
instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that
the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.)
Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that
that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the
internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that
sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe
that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now
I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but
please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it.  I have also
added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version
below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly
the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when
making policy... so that's a fact.)

And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition:

*... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global
commons and public good dimensions."*
   **
Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things:
either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation
and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place.


*"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, 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. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's
governance should be derived through **open, bottom-up, transparent,
participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. Such
principles and policies must aim at** ensuring its stability, functionality
and security as well as [or: While such **principles and policies
strive to ensure
stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim
at] preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good
character of the Internet, the combination of 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 governance of the **Internet promote the preservation and
enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character."
*
Mawaki







On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net>wrote:

> On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the
> processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern
> > democratic societies;
>
>
> Not quite.  Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that
> assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited
> practical-political value:”
>
> “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern
> for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, businesses,
> civil society organizations, and households—and for what others expect of
> them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and
> probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1)
>
> She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive
> (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in
> provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of
> benefits).”(2).  She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive
> powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of
> undersupply and market failure.  She sees a need to develop, “a more
> systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3).  In her terms,
> Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against
> the wishes of the state.” (4).
>
> “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy
> choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the
> definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in
> their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by
> policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised
> definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto
> public in consumption.” (5)
>
> “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely
> state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own,
> beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the
> market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6).
>
> Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit
> more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism."
>
> GG
>
> (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public
> Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U.
> Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization.
> Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78.
> http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf
>
> (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century.
> Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for
> Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3.
> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf
>
> (3). Inge Kaul. 16
>
> (4). Inge Kaul. 9.
>
> (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81.
>
> (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130424/236bf8e8/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