[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Apr 25 01:43:16 EDT 2013
On Thursday 25 April 2013 12:43 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 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.
Mawaki
Earlier the phrase was just 'due democratic processes' to which Ian said
' it looked too much like what governments do'. To me democratic
processes is not something governments do, they are just democratic
processes, that is all. But I think Ian was making explicit a historical
connection and assumption that he had in him mind, and presumes others
have to. Similarly, the above text, especially the bottom-up part of it
appears to me to point to directly and somewhat exclusively to ICANN
associated processes.
parminder
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130425/cf34c09d/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