[governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions?)

[McTim]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

<snip>


> that would be the right thing to do, the idea of splitting the list is
> too incompatible with
> the way in which this Internet Governance Caucus has been constituted...
>


agreed


>
> > it should be along the
> > lines of "Governance of the Internet" and "Governance of things people
> do on
> > the Internet".
>
> Hmm... I think that I understand roughly what you mean with this (if I
> understand you
> right, the division that you're proposing is very similar to what I
> proposed, just using
> different concepts to try to draw a line).
>
>
yes


> However it seems to me that "Governance of the Internet" vs.
> "Governance of things
> people do on the Internet" could also be interpreted differently, and
> I think that it would
> be hard to argue that that would be an invalid interpretation:
>
> Specifically, "things people do on the Internet" could be interpreted
> so that "chat on
> facebook" would be an example of it.


yes


> "Throwing people out of
> chatrooms" if they are
> somehow determined to be middle-aged men pretending to be teenage girls
> would be
> "Governance of things people do on the Internet".



yes


> Making sure that the service
> provided by Facebook Inc. is continuously available would then be seen
> as part of
> "Governance of the Internet".
>
>
no, this is entirely a FB issue, not an IG issue.  delegation of the name
.facebook however would be a "governance of the Internet" issue.


> I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of considering governance of
> a very proprietary
> platform to be part of Internet governance.



me too, which is why I don't classify it as such.


> But probably my discomfort
> is primarily with
> the fact that a platform that (when considered from the perspective of
> its user base and
> the associated network effects) is as important as Facebook is allowed
> to be totally
> proprietary - as opposed to it having at least standardized and open
> interfaces that would
> allow third parties to fully participate in Facebook's user community,
> without submitting to
> Facebook Inc.'s policies on what they do with people's data, or to
> Facebook Inc.'s policies
> on application software.
>
>
I can't parse this.  In terms of "Governance of the Internet",
facebook.comhas exactly the same "importance" as
bollow.ch.

Would you like it if there was an organisation who told you what protocols
you could and could not use for bollow.ch?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/82f9d902/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