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

[michael gurstein]

Hi,

 

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:16 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
Exceptions?)

 

 

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

Ahh. How do we define "Governance of the Internet" 

 

And there is the rub, if 20% or so of humanity (say 40-50-60% of all
Internet users) is signed up to Facebook.com (or some equivalent numbers for
Google.com or mPesa, or .) and .000000001 of humanity is signed up to
bollow.ch then surely "quantity" becomes "quality"

 

I don't see how this follows.

 

Will you ask for differenet rules for FB vs bollow.ch?

[MG>] depends on which rules we are talking about and in what contexts. 

 

 

What about in registering the domain name, different rules?

[MG>] probably not as one can't really predict which domain will become a FB
and which a bollow.ch

 

and particularly if activities are undertaken using those applications/built
on those platforms that are "necessary" and "exclusive" i.e. they provide
services or functions that are necessary and are not easily accessible in
any other way.

 

I have yet to find anything on FB that is "necessary".

[MG>] I think the example that is generally used is that Ghana first
announced its election results on FB. what consequences followed from that
(if any) I'm not sure of, but one could imagine how that kind of practice
would lead to services/functions that in some contexts are "necessary".  If
mPesa is providing the only "banking" service available for vast numbers of
the population of Kenya or wherever, presumably the service can be seen as a
"necessary" one and thus subject to some sort of regulation.

 

At that point there is I would think, the need (as a matter of "public
interest") for "an organisation who told you what protocols you could and
could not use".

 

 

At that point, there would need to be a discussion why these "necessary
services are on FB and not in the public domain.

[MG>] that's a good question and one worth addressing. the idea of a global
public domain email service has been mooted from time to time (and I believe
something of that sort was established in Sweden through the postal service.
As you well know, there are pro's and con's for this. My point though is to
simply say that these kinds of matters (and including "private services")
need to be examined through a public interest lens.

 

M

 

 

-- 
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/20130222/89bf987c/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