[Advisors] Internet Governance

[Michael Gurstein]

Having been round this track before I think it is necessary to recognize a distinction between the technical management of the Internet something for which we are all grateful to the various tech folks who have done and continue to do an exemplary job, and the policy or public interest management of the Internet. A useful example of the latter at least is the Alliance for an Affordable Internet (A4AI) where the US Government and the tech majors and which ISOC has chosen to endorse, are attempting to impose a neo-liberal/market fundamentalist policy straightjacket on how Less Developed Countries manage/govern the development of the Internet in their jurisdictions. 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/a4ai-who-could-oppose-a-more-affordable-internet-the-alliance-for-an-affordable-internet-a4ai-and-the-neo-liberal-stealth-campaign-to-control-the-internet-throughout-the-developing-world-and-make/

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/the-a4ai-discussion-a-summation/

M

-----Original Message-----
From: advisors-bounces at tc.ca [mailto:advisors-bounces at tc.ca] On Behalf Of Gary W Kenward
Sent: May 12, 2016 12:35 PM
To: Telecommunities Advisors <advisors at tc.ca>
Subject: [Advisors] Internet Governance

It is certainly legitimate to extend the definition of "Internet Governance”. Language is organic, and I have no use for language policing.

In my experience (which includes working of various data networking standards groups, including the ITU and the IETF), overloading the scope of the meaning of a term  increases the uncertainty of interpretation, eventually leading to unpredicted, often unwanted, outcomes.

The success of the Internet - the TCP/UDP/IP internetwork transport solution - is largely due to the adherence of the IAB, and thus the IETF, to a well defined boundary between the Internet architecture and the plethora of end user applications. This isn’t a antiquated historic perspective. The battle to keep the Internet working as well it does continues as the Internet is driven towards supporting new transport technologies and services, and as commercial interests rally to regain an entrenched monopoly on network infrastructure and application services.

If media content generation, Internet access pricing, education and other Internet related issues are lumped under the banner of “Internet Governance”, I strongly believe the various conversations will become obsfucated by the diverse contexts surrounding each issue. Is education on the safe and productive use of the Internet an Internet Governance issue requiring legislated regulation? Or is it an issue best addressed by education policy and social programs? Is distributed media generation an issue of Internet Governance or one of culture and community empowerment?

The Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts are separate pieces of legislation for good reasons. Internet Governance should, in my view, be kept separate from media content generation and distribution, education, privacy, and so on. Some would call this a responsible separation of concerns. 

Gary

PS:  For the record: I strongly believe that ISOC should be involved in a broader range of Internet related issues. The controversy, if there is one, is not whether ISOC should adopt a broader mandate (it has) but how these issues can be addressed effectively in the global context given the disparity of regional needs and concerns.


_______________________________________________
Advisors mailing list
Advisors at tc.ca
http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors