[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

Sun May 5 03:16:33 EDT 2013

Hi,

Mawaki, good elaboration.

Come to think, why is there no Global government?

Whose interest was it during the years of slavery? Which has re-surfaced in
more systematic approaches.

Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA

"Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively."

+234 8027510179
On May 4, 2013 7:44 PM, "Mawaki Chango" <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Of the intertwining of thought and the geographies of economy...
>
> For whatever it's worth, pre-Socratic Greek thinkers already saw a
> connection between geography and philosophy, notably across schools in the
> islands of the North-Eastern Mediterranean sea. With a globalized and
> further globalizing economy plus several layers of geo-strategic calculus,
> natural geography has long become less relevant in terms of providing any
> significant independent variables for shaping our thinking (in other words,
> in terms of determining the way we think and the outcome of our thinking.)
> As the other guy said: It's the economy, stupid! So now, it is not the
> natural geography but the economic geography that matters! And with
> economic geography (and power) comes political geography, too (in which
> "region(s)" Israel or New Zealand belong, again?) Well, power is
> everywhere, even within CS, isn't it?
>
> The most intriguing thing for people outside the US is that the people who
> seem to be most intent and relentless with every possible argument to shoot
> down the state (or disable the state altogether) are those very people
> whose state works the most effectively on their behalf particularly on the
> international stage, that is, on behalf of them citizens either directly or
> through the promotion of and support to their private corporations. Good
> for them! But I'd hope things might work better in forging shared interests
> and agreements if we could start from a mutual and deep understanding as to
> why such is the case in some parts of the world, particularly the US, and
> why such is NOT the case elsewhere.
>
> Does anyone here think they fully understand why a certain group of
> countries lean toward certain positions, and others the opposite direction?
> Might they have some legitimate reasons for that, including self-interest
> --whatever that means-- or is someone just plain stupid? If self-interest,
> is someone's self-interest more legitimate than others' and how does one
> determine that? Does anyone even seek to understand why the split? Why
> citizenry in some countries do believe they need the state, and that the
> state might even be their best chance to representation on the
> international stage? Does anyone really care to bridge the gap? Or are we
> just extending the war by all means but lethal weapons? After all, that is
> historically a huge achievement: civilization or the replacement of
> physical violence by language. Isn't that enough?
>
> We hear about the rule of the victor after a war (I believe there's even a
> standard phrase for that, which I'm forgetting.) But what happens before
> the war, how does power play out in time of peace? Ideally, the most
> powerful must be right! Yeah, things would work more smoothly if we all can
> just admit the self-evidence of the superiority of the self-interest of the
> most powerful (since no one can really demonstrate whose self-interest is
> more legitimate than others'). And if the least powerful want to prevent or
> deny them the right to be right, tension becomes high, very high, and
> transaction costs follow the same direction especially for those least
> powerful. However, I won't go as far as to say the most powerful will wage
> a war just to be right, just so that victorious they can rule the day after
> the war.  But who am I to know how the most powerful think about such
> important things as war and peace, and all the power play in between?
>
> So one thing I seem to agree with MM on is that economy is of prime
> importance and determines everything else -- proof is that, along with its
> geographical variability, it is so deep-seated in our brains that it
> determines our way of thinking. Right? Truth be told, I only doubt about
> the might of the economy and economic motivations when I am visiting my
> mom's village... anyway, I've always suspected those people to be out of
> time, so don't mind them, an economic anomaly history shall rid us of.
>
> mawaki
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:19 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?"***
>> *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130505/df7c3140/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