[governance] DNS [Property or Public Good]

[Karl Auerbach]

On 04/01/2014 05:25 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> My question is this: Is this answer of yours also an answer (if only
> indirectly) to the question of DNS as public good. Well, assuming one
> can formulate a definition of public good without positively relying on
> the concept of property as culturally overloaded as it is -- but then
> again if the implication of your repeated answer is that such
> formulation of a definition of 'public good' is impossible, then yes
> your repeated answer is the only thing I can get.
> 
> Is the unbundling of rights and duties (on specific pieces/instances of
> the DNS) the only way you see fit for the question of the DNS (as a
> whole) as possible public good, too?  

Almost any given thing is a blend of useful/good and bad - rights to
benefit from that thing in some way and obligations that arise.  (We
often tend to overlook those obligations.)

Sometimes those benefits accrue to - and obligations fall upon - each
individual person equally or upon all of us as a community.  I would
suggest that those kinds of things are "public" values.

Other times those benefits and obligations are more focused on a single
identifiable person (a natural human or a legal creation such as a
corporation).  I would suggest that those kind of things are "private"
values.

When we talk about private property we tend to mean things that land
mostly in that latter category, but still (we hope) remember that even
the most private of things tends to be subject to the public in some way
(often in some way that occurs more as an exception rather than the norm.)

So the problem I've wrestled with is what kind of principles can we use
to balance those public interests with the private ones.

Here's what I came up with:

First Law of the Internet
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html

+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way
  that is privately beneficial without being publicly
  detrimental.

   - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall
     be on those who wish to prevent the private use.

       - Such a demonstration shall require clear and
         convincing evidence of public detriment.

   - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent
     as to justify the suppression of the private activity.

I have found this useful.  However, it represents a balance between "me"
and "we" that tends to favor the former over the latter.  That may be a
balance that reflects my US/Canadian roots.  It would not surprise me to
learn that people from other cultures would strike a different balance.

To my mind, finding these kinds of statements of principle would be
useful to help us navigate our way through the maze of choices that we
have to make as we figure out how to govern - or not govern - various
aspects of the internet.

	--karl--




-------------- 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