[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
Izumi AIZU
iza at anr.org
Thu Apr 25 00:45:08 EDT 2013
Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple
question.
In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of
information
(and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly.
If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil
society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we should
address
these in some way.
izumi
2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> 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 **Internetpromote 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
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130425/43dbb6d8/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