[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Apr 27 13:29:27 EDT 2013
Milton/ All
As as been mentioned a few times earlier, we are not developing a
definition of the Internet. We are making an advocacy statement, whereby
there is an identified context - a recognition of a growing problem in
this regard, and a recommendation about the directions that IG should
therefore take.
You say that the statement of the problem is not true. I believe that
most people here agree with the problem statement of
“the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed
or proprietary online spaces.”
but, well, that can be tested out.
Having stated the problem, the proposed statement seeks that the
"preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and
public good character". Advocacy statement are made in a particular
context (the recognition of a problem here) and have a particular intent
(further evolution of IG to move *more* in a particular direction rather
than the other).
You are proposing that we add to the statement the need to save and
promote its private (property) character as well.
Now, advocacy statements are not made like this. For instance, most
global civil society networks will accept an advocacy statement like "we
should promote the commons character of knowledge". Almost all of them
will scoff at the demand to add to this something like "we do recognise
the need to privatise knowledge to provide enough incentives for its
further creation and so on", while admittedly, there is some truth in
this possible addition. But if you add this, it is not worth making a
statement at all. The purpose which was intended is not served.
Meanwhile, it is possible to make another advocacy statement on the
issue related to the private (property) nature of the Internet, but for
that you will need to frame the problem which you have not yet done.
Please make your case how the private property nature of the Internet is
threatened and what do you think should be done about it. Lets discuss
it here, and if there seems to be good support go to a consensus seeking
process.
Meanwhile, I propose that the coordinators put the current text of the
proposed statement to a consensus seeking process. It will either get
consensus or rough consensus or it will not. and we can get onto to
other things. However, too much energy has been spent by a lot of people
here to just leave it like that. Moreover, the content of the statement
is close to the heart of many of us here and we have the right to know
what the caucus thinks of it.
I think the current text stands as follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me
if I am wrong)
*"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 and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all
stakeholders. 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. "*
parminder
On Saturday 27 April 2013 07:40 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <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
> <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>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130427/e3bc2e08/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