[governance] [bestbits] Nominations for IGF closing and opening speakers

Sun Oct 25 16:44:01 EDT 2015

I’ll just applaud, once I finish laughing at the neat set of questions you asked him here.

—srs

> On 26-Oct-2015, at 2:02 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> This is the 10th anniversary of WSIS which called for a people-centred and
>> development-oriented information society. Let us examine if we have a more
>> people-centric Internet today than we had in 2005, and if not so, what are the
>> reasons, and what should have been done, and needs to be done, especially
>> from the point of view of governance of the Internet.
>> Can we agree to this being a key element that we should be focussed on?
> 
> No. 
> 
> Can you provide me with a metric of "people-centeredness"? One that is meaningful to all and not a purely ideological construct? The examples you gave below were not encouraging. 
> 
>> The Internet to me is rather less people- centric in its 'design' today than it
>> was 10 years ago... Of course so many more people use the Internet today,
>> which is rather obvious for a such a breakthrough technical advance, but for
> 
> So the people who are adopting and using the Internet don't count in your calculation. Interesting. The choices people make to adopt, say, Facebook in huge and growing numbers, does not mean that they see value in this in your book. What then does it mean? 
> 
>> the present purpose lets keep the focus on its design; is it more people-centric
>> today than it was 10 years ago
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by the 'design' of the Internet. If you are not talking about techno-management, and you are not talking about the design of the standards and protocols, from your examples below it sounds like you are talking about the economic organization or business models of service providers who run "over the top." 
> 
>> (1) Email was still the major p2p Internet application in 2005
> 
> Sigh. Email as P2P. Can someone other than me explain what's wrong with this assertion to P? I don't have time.
> 
>> media has overtaken it. Email system was based on public standards written
>> by IETF and other standards organisations, whereby there were no lock-ins
>> and every email service could interact with all others based on these public
>> protocols. 
> 
> Every email service can still interact with all others, and so can all the platforms.
> 
> I don't think you have a very accurate recollection or a very deep understanding of the compatibility issues here. What was your email client in 2005? Or 1995 for that matter? Mine was MS Outlook in 2005 and Netscape's browser in 1995. Have you tried moving your stored emails from either client to any other one? It was more difficult in 1995 than in 2005, and more difficult in 2005 than now. True, email standards interconnect all different clients then as now but there were various lock-in mechanisms. There is always a dynamic between competition, innovation and standardization, between open and proprietary, and you haven't made much of a case that we are tilting more one way than the other. 
> 
>> Compare that with a Facebook or a Twitter and you will easily see
>> what I am driving at. 
> 
> Sorry, I still don't see what you are driving at. I can see anyone's Tweet on the web, they can email me a link to it. Facebook seems to be a bit more closed off, (I am not a Facebook user (yeah, we do exist), so I am less sure of how users allow or do not allow access to their pages), but there were equivalent platforms in 2005. Since these blockages are a result of user choice, how is this a less "people-centered" internet? 
> 
>> (2) In 2005, Web was the unchallenged king on the Internet, today proprietary
>> apps are increasingly taking its place. Again, I am not saying that we should
> 
> Wrong. Most "proprietary" apps are free, and they link to and complement the web, they do not substitute for it. Furthermore, tons of web sites had (and still have) paywalls or login requirements in 2005.  
> 
>> I think there is a limit to which we can simply keep extolling the great wonder
>> that the IGF is - we must explain what inter alia has it really contributed, or
>> failed to contribute, to the mentioned very problematic development, which
>> have been taking place under its watch, and the watch of a veritable travelling
>> circus that the global IG scene has become.
> 
> Even though I largely agree with the implied criticism of the IGF, and 100% agree that we must always ask what it has contributed, I think when you say the Internet has developed in the way it has "under its watch" you are exaggerating the significance of what the IGF is or could be. The Internet, like the overall economy, is not a centralized system under any single authority's "watch."
> 
>> In this background, ones heart cringes to witness, as I had to witness last week
>> in New York, how the UN's WSIS + 10 review process is behaving as if there is
>> just nothing wrong with the Internet, and the manner in which it is effecting
>> large-scale structural changes in the world, in almost all sectors. There was
>> practically no mention at all of the numerous issues in this regard that we
>> read almost daily in the newspapers (Volkswagen's software cheating, John
>> Deere claiming that its tractors are in fact software with mechanical parts,
>> and so on. To mention just two news that I read over the last 2-3 weeks alone.
>> The list in fact is unending).
> 
> These are interesting developments in IT, but have no connection whatsoever to Internet governance.
> 
>> There was no political energy at all in the room (at
>> WSIS review), and everyone seemed wanting the proceedings to end quickly
>> so that they could leave. This is quite in contrast to the politically charged
>> discussions during the original WSIS... What has happened in the meanwhile?
> 
> Interesting question. Worth discussing. I have my ideas about that, but you probably would not like them.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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