[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[parminder]

On Monday 29 April 2013 11:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile 
> Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in 
> Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to 
> other social networking websites.
>
> OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic 
> nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of 
> network neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public 
> goods" character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get 
> any traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you 
> want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality 
> statement, at least people will know what you are talking about.
>

Net neutrality (NN) is a sub issue of the larger commons/ public good 
framing. Well, now that you tell me that we should make a NN statement 
so that people at least know what we are taking about, I cant but take 
you to a few months back when we tried to make an NN statement; as a 
workshop proposal to the IGF. Then some IGC-ians, including some of 
those who now also oppose a common/ public goods statement, opposed the 
NN statement using the same argument, that NN is a term without a clear 
enough meaning !? Never mind that a few countries have NN legislations.  
Consequently, IGC could not use the term NN in its workshop proposal.

Now, that tells us two things.

One, *beyond a point*, which concept is clear and meaningful and which 
not is a specific political preference. (For instance, many of those who 
find NN and Internet's commons/ public goods character as unclear or 
meaningless formulations never hesitate to use multistakeholder-ism or 
MSism in their statements. Now I know for sure that many times more 
people - at least outside the IGC - are clearer about what NN or 
commons/ public goods character of the Internet means than they are 
about what does MSism really mean.)

Second, it is perhaps now established that this group is clearly unable 
to articulate any advocacy view which has political economy 
implications, or touches positive rights .  It would remain confined to 
procedural issues, mainly promoting MSism, which is a code word for 
removing governments from wherever they can conceivably be removed from. 
(This connects to larger anti-political trends which I wont go into 
here.) At the most, it can support a statement on freedom of expression, 
which, in absence of articulation of at least the connected 
communication rights  framework, look suspiciously close to US's 
hegemonic 'internet freedom' agenda.

This is very disappointing, and would IMHO compromise the legitimacy of 
IGC as a premier global civil society group. If people have to go 
elsewhere to talk about and articulate political economy issues with 
respect to the global Internet and its governance, it is not a good 
thing. For one, there seems to be no elsewhere to go right now. That is 
a gap which may need to be filled.

parminder


> Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a 
> gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet.  
> For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it 
> - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a 
> Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't.  
> I presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", 
> which although becoming dated now gives many other examples.
>
> Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform 
> operator having the authority to internalize the externalities of the 
> internet by making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded 
> and which cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform 
> operators argue that they should have editorial discretion; some 
> consumer groups actually _/want/_ platform operators to make those 
> decisions; many economists and regulators feel that competition among 
> platform operators is enough to keep abuses in check. There are 
> various examples of where public pressure has ended some arbitrary 
> incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either of 
> those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little to do with 
> the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what we 
> contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons."
>
> An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean 
> what, exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that 
> there was no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, 
> including malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no 
> one would have any right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers 
> complain about it? But if there is selection, then who decides what is 
> selected and under what criteria? The government? Think that'll be 
> better? Which government?
>
> In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is 
> not clear. This is still a meaningless statement.
>
> Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 
> years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, 
> mobile walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined 
> you to a restricted set of special services they had deals with. The 
> advent of the iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile 
> internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is the evidence 
> of a "growing trend?"
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130503/cc15e004/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