"DIY" Internet Governance (2 viewing) (2) Guests
TOPIC: "DIY" Internet Governance
"DIY" Internet Governance 3 Years, 2 Months ago
I wish that given the interactive and collaborative expertise available on the Internet, a DIY (ie. Decide it for yourselves) Int Gov quest from your own narratives were fruitful. It would be along the known scenarios building and hexa or quadrant thinking on exceptions and over the extant tri or dilemmas. I am assuming respondent natures as either those who vouche for its Governance to be hands free, on, or middle ground as solicited in here. Because the sooner Internet Governance shall pave the way for the global local Info society over the politics and economics of scarcities in its licensed bottlenecks or provisioned reaches, the better for you innovators anywhere to decide on cost effective, applications replete, and tech friendly Internet publics. Meanwhile you are self discovering the form of Governance by means of innovative designs responses, say an Internet v 2.0 virtualized networks and platforms netizens are entitled to access "slices" on what one wishes to do vis-a-vis the stakeholders who want their "stakes" must earn the publics trust. The State rather than to run Internet portals or projects can only volunteer to join the coalition when it may not exclusively initiate policy or manage resources, nor the market players prematurely claim the territory for clients or profits. Thus the Int Gov is about the best Public policy and Tech standards and Open forums can be, and altogether make what is optimal for the publics arena as not one view to a balanced one of Internet evolution. (suggestions below indicative only ;)
Do you think Internet..
1. gives you freedom over your governments, markets, and society? Yes/No
.. it would mean freedom to interact (a) without intermediation (b) through collective action
[ie. Internet for some may be great escape, or Info commons, or else state authorized as an information medium..]
2. makes new economy innovations as enemies of the old economy? Yes/No
.. new ideas are given chance to prove (a) as piloted prototypes (b) in actual markets
[ie. Internet as the new innovation platform may need no protection, or launch pads, or else state undertakings..]
3. allows innovators or user domains free from taking permissions? Yes/No
.. the claims from real world prevail (a) in cyber space (b) restricted space only
[ie. Internet as useful aid for @edges innovation, or horizontal teams, or else vertical command lines..]
4. encourages a broad range of interests and skill levels to co-exist? Yes/No
.. that group selections are made of (a) best in class (b) similar in nature
[ie. Internet as such the best and fittest survive, or groups formed with merit attractions, else cherry picked..]
5. enables to cast your opinions, without the need for simultaneity? Yes/No
.. those decisions may be made up (a) over a longer interval (b) at predetermined date
[ie. Internet suitable to no memberships, or consensus discovery, or else structured voting arrangements..]
6. upholds more freedom than of the controls, prices, and customs? Yes/No
.. such freedoms are in the nature of (a) of fundamental rights (b) as freewheeling types
[ie. Internet considered as uninhibited world, constrained higher ordinates, or else controlled settings..]
7. compensates enough for your contributions if you wished to add? Yes/No
.. their reconciliation shall be taken (a) at the assigned price (b) as adequate collections
[ie. Internet advantage marketed at highest price tags, or low cost high volume, or else administered..]
8. manages itself albeit distinctly for commons, commerce, custom? Yes/No
.. where demarcated properties for (a) privately held assets (b) both public and private
[ie. Internet as self managed, orthogonals co-ordinated, or else public-private partnership models..]
9. emerges a neutral medium for access or agnostic to user identity? Yes/No
.. when memberships segregated by (a) identity registration (b) randomized access
[ie. Internet as "no one knows you are.., randomized identities but conditional, or public registered..]
10. appears to have developed into ‘one size fits all’ kind of solution? Yes/No
.. areas of utilizations support members’ (a) induced uses (b) inspired uses
[ie. Internet accessed as a general search vehicle, or ontology pathways, or else DoI catalogued..]
11. grows beyond the capacity, as likened to roads and flood of cars? Yes/No
.. problems must pave way for like (a) private toll lanes (b) multilane plans
[ie. Internet better served as best effort ends, or traffic rules enroute, or else private leased ..]
12. enjoys better personal preference over cell phones and cable TV? Yes/No
.. because the channels are promoted (a) for better reliability (b) for more opportunity
[ie. Internet sites hosted for special interests, or services scaleable, or else QoS relied..]
13. extends the ‘universal service obligation’ and reach to humanity? Yes/No
.. preferred approach must be to achieve (a) all inter-connectivity (b) full connectivity (c) subscriber-ability
[ie. Internet as next users, or net enabled opportunity for all, or else 99% coverages..]
14. will remain committed to community services, or organisations? Yes/No
.. which depends on quantum of usage (a) governmental data (b) monopolistic trade (c) local-community
[ie. Internet naming conventions anticipated as arbitrary, or synergistic, or else siloed..]
15. will be subject to same uncontrolled or controlled growth trend? Yes/No
.. perceived benefits costs come from (a) social value to all (b) derived value space (c) franchised-value
[ie. Internet positioned as laissez faire, derived values seeking, or else taxed regime..]
16. will face challenges to its uniqueness of not owned by one party? Yes/No
.. likely to be threatened by concerns of (a) proprietary (b) sovereignty (c) security
[ie. Internet as personal key centric, status-quo public, or else filtered and censored..]
17. will have served more people with open contents and know-how? Yes/No
.. situations can be restored by efforts (a) open code variety (b) community owned (c) closed user group
[ie. Internet emerges as the open codes, creative commons, or else closed varieties..]
18. will open up the last mile end through broadband traffic players? Yes/No
.. scenario of users and data streamers (a) metros & high rises (b) villages & cow paths (c) highway habitats
[ie. Internet subjected to the content players, or locale infrastructures, or auctioned..]
19. problems will be solved of on-going uncertainty and complexity? Yes/No
.. due to interventions or initiatives of (a) primarily the State (b) virtual Communities (c) Internet firms
[ie. Internet and beyond transport, or the version next, or else wait and watch routines..]
20. recognitions of ‘more the merrier’ participants will be sustained? Yes/No
.. there will be realization in favour of (a) participatory values (b) increasing size of pie (c) rationing provision
[ie. Internet as power maximization, or increasing returns paradigm, or else utilitarian ..]
21. innovations will have momentum that created itself in beginning? Yes/No
.. driven by the necessity for finding (a) answers to problems (b) combination of ideas(c) preset utilizations
[ie. Internet still case for finds to funds, or cross feeds, or else follow the money trails..]
22. developments would be borne out of all-round experimentation? Yes/No
.. thrust for further impetus may be (a) more of technologies (b) more of methods (c) newer needs
[ie. Internet driven as tech wavefronts, or comon test-beds, or else dire necessities..]
23. evolution would be determined by particular trends or patterns? Yes/No
.. constrained by the strategic returns in (a) costs reductions (b) new breakthroughs (c) stable increments
[ie. Internet facilities as Services oriented, or Demand access cloud, or else extended Gateways..]
24. architectures the dominant requirements along desirable styles? Yes/No
.. developers may envision the future as (a) close knit communes (b) open net projects (c) shared exclusives
[ie. Internet dominant usage as virtual communities, or third party mediators, or else enterprise focus..]
25. considers your freedom of expression as intellectual protections? Yes/No
.. personally feel a protected regime to be (a) enforced by the State (b) encoded technology (c) open utility model
[ie. Internet upheld as highest public stake, or embedded protections, or else peer to peer advanced..]
P.S: The kaleidoscopic views and insights uncovered through the narratives may likely afford a decision tree on the subject hitherto dependent on the Public choice theory and implicit partner roles. Rather there need be nothing official about it as they may afford something more explicit and encourage participation in Public policy so that Internet and applications evolve around a global federated than selected peers and edges. Because without the support environment and facility overlays one cannot imagine Internet innovations to happen against the strangle holds of telecom regulations or outside off the shores bonded ware houses. Otherwise it is still trapped in the conduits of global submarine cables and Internet resellers upto last mile ends. Much less to expect the developing world too have local and relevant infrastructure for Internet shared networks and services on par with the developed sites. The Public policy is alas oblivious to it when it is still like looking in the one way mirrors with the US market centric drivers. After all you are known for the kind of Governance you keep to foster the end to end Internet to take roots and flourish in the locale turfs. Hence the geo located or distributed Internet & Broadband presence in intuitively navigated (machine server).Local Domain.(root provider) may have local exchange, home agent, domain center and access subnets as defacto facilities besides protocol gateway to other networks. Therefore added importance may have the global and local multi stakeholders implementation keys for effective but so far elusive outcomes. It will thus unlock the hurdles before each others 'key decision points' and to change the emphases from only likely performance KPIs or KRAs to local domains and problems so as to revive their political economic social or else cultural deprived roots.
[Pun: Your civilized genesis from Indus and his ancestral exodus from Oxus are just OK as long as it all ends in us !]
Re:"DIY" Internet Governance 2 Years, 7 Months ago
I also think that given the Public policy intent of Internet Gov & Development Goals as regards the WSIS Principles, a Strategic management framework of Multi stakeholders views & participation is critical for balancing Info Policy with the existing Market supply-demand constraints and even to overcome if possible, with a cascading set of major Assumptions, Objectives, Success Indicators, and Action lines as solicited in below. Particularly, the Mission vide the Tunis Agenda para 29 (Vision), para 31 (Rationale), para 34 (Definition), para 58 (Scope), para 61 (Process), and para 70 (Framework) for the right environment and Multi stakeholders (Stakes) should transform the user concerns (Symptoms), conceptual issues (Analyses), framework agenda (Results) and action points (Implements) in that order of a strategy to take up the Public policy challenges. Because it has to be thought altogether of unlike private lobbies or revenues forsaken for the Information productivity over inputs and outputs that show up as democratic deficits now or digital dividends later like words from bread alone strategies or risks. Hence a lot depends on the strategic (to be specified) Performance requirements that are arrived at in the available forums like the UN-IGFs and ISOC Chapters for delivering the agreed upon results framework. (suggestions below indicative only ;)
Internet Governance of multi dimensional ramifications for its development and developing countries in particular has failed to connect with respect to the WSIS Principles and the main elements between Public policy and e-Infrastructure.
Governments are more used to the departmental justifications of Taylorism with regard to letting Public policy in danger of their withering heights, and instead of Internet priorities following the pork barrel approach to e-Infrastructure.
Internet Governance eco-system of multi-stakeholders mechanism revives the Info societal relationships and distributive justice for Public policy that prevail over mere markets led suppy-demand factors and profits driven baselines.
Internet's foundations and IETF model have in fact upheld democratic essence of choices and values that Ethernet bus does for local hosts to what IXPs should be doing to IP end-end protocols not point-point MPLS for global routers, and further still on XML Interfaces for Web services to many apps packaged codes and data.
Internet futures of multiple manifestations and new enhanced IP address space via shared networks and seamless public or private realms as opposed to legalised isolations in real life or products and against homogenised states of sectarian myths than secular basics may emulate genetic codes identities to human unity.
OBJECTIVE 1 Internet Governance
Enable Public policy in cyber space as key prerogative of the decentralised Internet & target connectivity, interoperability between local domains and levels of interactions for an Info Society.
OBJECTIVE 2 Internet Development
Realise e-Infrastructure to support the Internet architecture and common usage models around Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as both the points of presence and isolations for competitive ISPs and Applications services.
OBJECTIVE 3 Enhanced Cooperation
Advance the UN-IGF mandates for a global or plurilateral framework on Internet to promulgate and implement compatible National laws ( * subject to 5 below) with all major stakeholders that will enable the users to have instant and inexpensive access to service providers & autonomous systems to perform decentralised responsibilities.
OBJECTIVE 4 Internet & Web Technologies
Promote Internet/ ICTs based Tools and Technologies as well as Communications Convergent services & Internet Standards for true federated Internet Governance with the required PLAs & SLAs to various domains and heterogeneous systems available across rural and urban areas for inclusive socio-economic development and further evolution of Internet.
Interface with relavent Multi-stakeholders and other Agencies of Government and International Organisations as part of the above objectives.
Objective 1 Description
Internet Policy (Information maximization) & MSP Participation for Information symmetry and poverty alleviation.
Success Indicators Description
Policy Consensus reached with 4 Major Stakeholders as Governmental, Corporate, Civil Society, and International Organisations.
Excellent All MSPs
Very Good Government and Private Stakeholders
Good Government, Private, and Public interested Stakeholders
Fair Government interventions
Objective 2 Description
e-Infrastructure (Max. Internet Facility) & LIRs/IXPs Decentralisation including Investment funding and private equity.
Success Indicators Description
Remove Economic scarcities prevailing in the regional perspective and with regard to the Supply-Demand constraints on Internet.
Excellent Whole of Regional Fabric
Very Good National Peers O.F Paths
Good IXPs & 4 Regions Transits
Fair IXP Gateways
Objective 3 Description
Internet Agenda ( Max. Info Society) & UN-IGF for Public policy environment of positive Information externalities and socio-economic development.
Success Indicators Description
Formalise Critical Internet Usage Issues deliberated in the IGF for local level initiatives covering Internet Meta Data resources, Access Networks and Services, Diversity and User Interfaces, Open Standards and Protocols, User Security and Privacy Issues resolutions.
Excellent Comprehensive IG Models
Very Good Access, Diversity, Openness, Security Issues
Good Access, Diversity, Openness Issues
Fair Access, Diversity Issues
Objective 4 Description
Development Projects/Schemes ( Max. Innovation) & Internet Players Contracts/RFPs for pan country focus with a composit index in terms of Internet Steering Group (ISG) priorities, impacts, and stages of Internet evolution.
Success Indicators Description
Identify projects and categories aligned or integrated into an Objective criteria that consist of qualification, eligibility, timelines etc. and prioritized for research grants or funding as High, Medium, Low.
Excellent Aggregate score >90%
Very Good 80-90%
Objective 5 Description
Collective Co-operation on National or International Interests & Millenium Development Goals.
Success Indicators Description
Follow up on Budgets/Planning Commissions/IMGs/ Joint Working Groups etc.
Excellent Co-ordination at Cabinet/ Ministerial levels
Very Good Departmental level
Good Group/Divisional level
Fair Case level
Objective 1 Policy Target Time Lines 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Objective 2 Program Target Geo Reaches LIRs NIRs RIRs
Objective 3 Coverage Target Issues Coverages All Critical Relevant
Objective 4 Table Target Benchmarks Total Most Partial
Objective 5 Schedule Target Take ups Timely Numbers Times
PS: The Public policy & MSPs are no misnomers for the State's procurement or manpower policy as mere numbers filling game either when the public contracts need be defined for rather permanent or perpetual infrastructure provisions or innovative providers and projects life cycles neither dependencies free of frameworks nor freeware contracts:
1. Should the State be owner of IT assets/risks when it can steward funds or share the Info ways with end users control of public processes and systems?
2. Would the Practises on existing lease/BOT model choices or exits hold good to transfer obsolescence or losses when successive services providers can carry on with best offers?
3. Could the Open standards/source ware camps before adjudged winners position their own community or competency centres to showcase the conceptual, functional, technical, or other operative models with test houses of interfaces and performances?
[Pun: Proprietary ware are just open source ware simply recoded or adapted to functionalities or binaries!]]