[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Mawaki Chango]

I need reply to the questioning of some language which I specifically put
in the statement that is being objected to. Hopefully, my last word on this
issue.


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is
> misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously nothing
> near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one faction to impose
> their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring
> more important and consensual values. ****
>
> ** **
>
> There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There is a
> vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be
> reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” I challenge the truth of
> this assertion. I think it’s just false. I see no such trend, no such
> danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and
> show how it constitutes something systemic and something that end users
> really don’t want.
>

It is too easy to give the end user 2 or 3 options and expect that they by
themselves will come up with the design of the, e.g., dozen of options that
may be possible and even feasible. The notion that the user, or more
precisely user choice, is a fully significant variable (by lack of a better
phrase) in the equation to assess the realm of possibilities and feasible
solutions is a fallacy --and the large field of advocacy is that realm of
possibilities with, *possibly*, a pragmatic inflection towards solutions
that are perceived at a given point in time as feasible. To make a
comparison with something you already stated yourself, it's like saying
IETF decision-making processes (or early IG processes in general) are
democratic as opposed to saying they are democratic ONLY AMONG a restricted
group (a technical elite) while there is a much much larger group of people
who will be impacted by the outcomes but are not involved, etc. That may be
necessary but that is a kind of "democracy" (if one absolutely wants to
call it that) one would need to qualify, to say the least. So I'm using
here the same mental process in your own sound reasoning on that: Users can
only chose between the 2 or 3 options availed to them, and user choice only
says something really significant about those available options --and
nothing beyond that, particularly in a field where users massively lack the
capability to design new solutions by themselves. This is where I
personally deplore the fact that "computer literacy" (or "computeracy" if
you will), including writing codes, is not yet a fixture that it must
become in all basic education programs across the world. I like what
techies do and produce, but it seems to me most of them are lame when it
comes to talking in an understandable manner to non-techies and as a
consequence, I don't see them as the most qualified to speak on behalf of
users (no wonder user guides are most of the time useless! or they seem to
require a learning curve for themselves before the user can even tackle
what they are supposed to be guided about). That's also why it is crucial
that the "computer language" becomes part of everybody language.

Ok, that was a little bit of a digression but I wanted to make that point
because, as I was thinking about the issue, I felt IMHO that it is
relevant. Now, about the "attack" on the closed and proprietary online
spaces... I think I read on this very a while ago posts related to the fact
that the internet experience of more and more users --maybe the younger
ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, notably those of social
media such as Facebook (FB). Or was that a nightmare of my own? If not, and
if there is indeed some notable trend toward such state of affairs, and
furthermore noting that I have experienced more and more people sending FB
inbox messages that had nothing to do with my or their FB activities; that
SMTP and IMAP are more open and universal standards than the non-standards
underlining and enabling access & access of the FB silo; and that once huge
commercial interests are entrenched they tend to have a ripple effects on
what may remain a possible choice in the future or not (*); etc. I thought
that clause in the draft statement was justified. Now you may say we need
to come up with a research proposal and "scientifically" show that there is
a systematic evidence before we can make an assertion for CS advocacy
purposes, but I don't think that has always been the standard.

BTW, do you know that it now happens that FB tells people that they are
restricted from posting (inbox messages for x number of days), just as they
have been doing for limiting friend requests? While one can understand the
reason for the latter, the reason for the former escapes me. And no, it
wasn't a person spamming other people: so far he was mostly engaged in
two-way conversations and that restriction message prompted when he tried
to post an inbox message to a culinary page after asking a question on the
page's wall, which was not attended to (and no record of offensive
contents, etc.) I personally consider this as a violation of an
individual's right to communicate. And if you thing that (on top of all the
practices that seem to claim for FB the status of the online identity
authority) should not be cause for concern, you find me really surprised.

(*) You may want to note that it is the commercial/popular success of
platforms such as FB that has led their authentication and data sharing
feature (such as F-Connect) to defeat the then on-going efforts from the
rest of the industry to launch digital identity technologies that give more
capabilities to the users to manage and possibly control their identity
information and related transactions.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend toward
> content regulation and censorship in many countries. But somehow, we don’t
> seem interested in addressing that. There is a growing danger of
> securitization. We don’t address that. By the way, how does this attack on
> closed online spaces relate to the agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of
> people WANT to close off some of the information shared on the internet
> (although this is not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that
> problem a moment’s thought.
>

You can see above how what you call an "attack" can relate to privacy,
which I've been hearing a lot about, including from myself :), just as I
have been hearing a lot about freedom of expression and censorship. Maybe
we have seen as much progress on those issues as we would have liked and we
would still like. But that is not reason not to advocate on other issues.

Unless I stated something above that proves to be inaccurate, which I might
need to respond to if called out, I wish to leave it at that --which should
not prevent you from acknowledging it in case the above has helped in any
way clarify some arguments for you :)

Mawaki


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” concepts over
> everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the concept of
> public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the internet as a whole
> as a public good when it has clear that many features of it are private
> goods and that much of the value we associate with the internet comes from
> allowing private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the
> global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is both
> factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be
> forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a
> civil society position. ****
>
> ** **
>
> --MM****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Izumi
> AIZU
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45 AM
> *To:* governance; Mawaki Chango
> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good****
>
>  ** **
>
> 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 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****
>
>  ** **
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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****
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130427/8a434aca/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