[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Apr 25 02:44:07 EDT 2013
On Thursday 25 April 2013 12:07 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> I am happy to add at the end
>
> Internet must also be promoted (or some better word) as a vehicle (?)
> of free expression and for free flow of information, knowledge and ideas
add here, and for free association
> . Subject to wordsmith-ing..
>
> However, at this point I think we need to perhaps put a stop to
> further expanding the desirable characteristics of the Internet and
> corresponding policy objectives. Otherwise it will become an unending
> process.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Thursday 25 April 2013 10:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>> 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 <mailto: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 ***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
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130425/bc0a5e45/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