------- THE INTEGRITY OF GOVERNANCE AND INTERNET AS ONLY A TECHNOLOGIES SET GET LOST IN THE DETAILS? -------
I would like to add here in clarifying the challenges of Public policy. It may be formulated as the common priors and views of stakeholders unity or else factions folly, since the human dilemma has always been for the common sense to prevail (It is over the realms of win-lose, unite-foil conflicts or strong-weak, opportune-threat reactions as either instinctive or emotive on how to make up on the natural laws as in planets orbit or river flows, and manual constructs of competitive tit for tats or duty rewards standard towards optimal live and let live systems or that win all not once interactions). Needless to say the Public policy is to making way for self governed rights in Info societal entity relations and activities that the Internet as universal design is seeking solution to information and systems for the affirmative actions and digital divides. The key or unique learning then are the semblance of governance by the separation of layers alone as too fragile less the commons, and hence the desirables and its dimensions of end user strategic control & open standard or source infrastructure as to join-up at the middle like the soft and hardware in an architectural framework:
1. The IG defined of its Public policy functions not avoiding it for development may show that private actions accrue to public benefits even as to share with the Internet's own evolution and use in the onset of a Digital society. The IGF's need of Public policy is to make it loud and clear how the Internet is tied to the needs of MDGs - of having been disadvantaged in some or other way by being ill, illiterate, illadvised, gendered, or else illtreated - which the Internet to obliterate and provide the enabling environment. It can become like no other convergence solutions in the fray albeit through innovative designs-responses rather than erstwhile deterrents-remediations and developments-regulations perse.
2. The IG supported of its Public policy roles not substituting it for State make further than the public infrastructures and competitive markets at the transition out of an Industrial society. The IGF's schema of Multi stakeholderism is not by a few alike that 'Internet is for all' integrity to the Info Commons, and bolstered by synergy through an innovative MSP's mechanism. Not to be rule gambit or smart alec yet socio pathetic in outcome, it should be entrusted with their respective roles and expertise. Internet too is approached from that principle of Net neutrality* by design innovation and invariance to users, vendors, or domains not information deluge for implementation. The peer to peer functional enriched applications should be facts of the matter, accessed, accessible, open and trusted customisations of dynamic governance online.
3. The IG delegated of its Public policy mandates not directing it for Provider-Subscriber traffic flows albeit down to the packets level have chance to get even with divides as we progress into an Info society. The IGF's outcome if at all depends not only on that orthogonality of Public policy and 'Internet traffic rules' to be safeguarded, but also to recognize Governance. It is beyond its other forms like majoritarian governments or markets only as 'veiled ignorance' for their variant destructive games towards an assurance game (or no game at all due wrong set-ups). It will be the new Info societal contract of MSPs to govern by their respective roles and voluntary Info mediated schema a priori given the nature of unintended consequences soon or late as near or far due to independent innovations and stakeholders.
* Net v. ICTs neutrality
In fact, the Net neutrality - that of innovative transitions in the Internet basics from IP and Web to XML and may be defined as the global compact for the Internet end to end interoperability, layer to layer subsidiarity, and peer to peer opportunity altogether for Info Commons - is that lends credence to the Internet Governance integrity. It may be either the truism or else going forward to the IGF schema rather than any institutional agency driven approach which I have alluded to in the attached submittal#. It is to raise the debate about the Internet's common pool resources and Info opportunity costs (**courtesy , Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson) at the code layer. The WSIS ensued principles and coalitions in search of the Public policy issues to be settled in an assurance game of sorts for the much needed global multi stakeholders participation. Internet openness principle is that the Internet itself need not be sacrosanct in the long term. It is the users and applications portfolios ability to detect the IP formatted 'type of service' such as voice or media. The networks or services operatives reducibility of that into the "commons tragedy" or "trojan tricks" at the physical or logical layers affects all even with the multi stakeholderism without the core support infrastructure. Ultimately, the Internet and its end to end principles like in a puzzle maze offer global facility and guidance to growth and development including Internet mediated peoples voices at the edges or else their divides.
** Constitutional v. State policy
No better tributes can be made than to L. Lessig and Y. Benkler for "the Internet code as the law" for users centrality and future innovations and "the Internet as the free choice". It is Inculcating groups forming netizenship and people centric governance***, beginning from their community locales and knowing that Internet is changing the game for that public utility sphere called Info commons for all ecosystem. The induced space is much like wide green expanse if provided for against reduction of the commons and shared benefits or risks. It can still be extended and Internet core and edges pay-offs made amenable to both "stags and hares hunt" instead of severally. Internet Governance and newer trends have the means as exemplified at the contents, codes and carriers layers by the likes of W3C, Free Sofware Foundation, and IEEE. For ex. the role of Public policy on the "Infrastructure codes" by universal Info exchanges at the IXPs level rather than technical routers or switches should allay the confusion in such Internet 'bursts and streams' or 'dejures and defactos' say, between the Skype or SIP protocols, and ODF or OOXML formats for user interests. Unfortunately, the developing world seems to have been caught up in the short run economies based on IPv4, 3G, Hydrocarbons etc. that may worsen the situation. It is a moot question whether the state patronage of public infrastructure provisions in essential societal sectors instead had turned a lopsided society or mixed up economy in order to have externalised or lessened the burden on the citizens at large.
*** Human Productivity v. Liquidity crisis
The Public policy intent should be strategic goals of the Information policy to be envisaged, and not the securitized trade positions similar to the monetary policies and fiscal stimulus underway after the financial crisis. It is apart from the global digital compact on Internet traffic rules for routers which may be unlike another WTO like agreement. That should ideally be with the Internet Community/ISOCs/IETF lead if not for the unexpected fall outs from the indirect Info social costs and externality effects (whereas the Internet core abstractions of IANA uniqueness than its open edges promotion and ICANN's role as one provider is code and the law that create controversy). It will be causated on the Universal Declaration on Human rights vide Article 19 that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The current realities are of enormous Information costs owing to the lurking human productivity crisis. It is overlooking on the Info added value of underlying ICTs assets and arising mainly from the enterprise than an Internet infrastructure centric focus as a costs killer. The looming cyber backlashes of great concern to publics may be attributed to the Info opportunity costs or else lack of policy incentives like Internet contracts for the New economy innovators and techpreneurs. It is a touch stone for the public intent of Internet Governance being pursued on cyber space issues and via stakeholders process will result in structural or incidental costs impact to the services publics as compared to the universalised or commercial counterparts in real infrastructures and application domains.
# Main points of ** Internet Gov in the WSIS Principles’ letters and/ or spirit?** Text transcript
1.The WSIS Principles contained in the UN hosted Geneva declarations and reiterated in particular vide Tunis Agenda para 29 and 30 were enunciated in view of the Internet has had evolved into a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Info Society agenda. Internet has made the transition from a academic research facility and is considered a central element as the e-Infrastructure for Info Society.
2.The Geneva declaration of principles for the Internet Gov in para 48, 49, 50 acknowledged it a case of multi stakeholderism and not government centric policy, the Internet arrangements in particular the resources management are consisted of the orthogonal technological and Public policy coordinates, and that of MSPs as innovative mechanism should resolve Internet issues.
3.The Internet Gov Forum (IGF) is seen as the most promising outcome of the WSIS rounds despite the apparent disconnect still visible on para 31 between the intended purpose of the means to ends in the MDG goals and Info rights or Governance in the transition from the industrial towards the Info society. It fails to clarify in what way Internet Gov figures in an Info society agenda.
4.Nevertheless Internet Gov has emerged as the sole issue besides the financial mechanism as the Digital Solidarity Fund like others have either fizzled or faded out in the aftermath of recessionary crises, and when Internet based strategies took the center stage as exemplified by new innovation models of Google et. al or even better Free and Open source/ Linux model initiative.
5.That said the initial thrust on states run e-Strategies and Internet as one of that components should be reviewed along with what role of the Internet shall shape the Action lines in particular C 6 – “Enabling Environment” of the Implementation & Follow up Annex on para 108. A SWOT assessed weakness would be lack of a committed ‘Internet Agenda’ to confront the telecom regulations or the Internet community itself and other Public interested stakeholders.
[The need for re-defining Internet Gov as “to make this flat world into Public common sphere” against threat to one sided views of it as mere follow on of the Internet resources management processes or its development as one of the ICTs issues instead of latter at its base to proliferate it to be a sort of local agenda 21 even at the risk of the governments lose to communities or new learning methodologies to deal with Internet led innovative options.]
6.The IGF mandates ensued from that WSIS principle of multi-stakeholders open inclusive dialogues and non-binding resolutions of Internet issues are at least categorical vide para 72 (a-l) of the Tunis agenda for the Info Society in the IGF evolved mechanism as suggested/ depicted topology below. It will be amenable for strategic opportunity and enhanced co-operative mechanism as envisaged for MSPs participation and of Public policy decisions making.
7.Hence IGF review is futile in letters sans spirit of the stated WSIS principles lest the IG may be turned into “ig” still born instead of “iG” as Internet will be a common place facility without net neutrality and bereft of freedom for that core commons against the now dominant edges. It calls for re-ordering of the extant institutions ex-situ and give fillip to the Info rights, Broad bands, and Innovation assets as major coalitions to pave the passage to an Info Society.
For urgent deliberations of the UNGA & IGF to make up for the impasse on the IG enhanced cooperation in between a priori design/postiori follow up by the ECOSOC/CSTD via MSPs mechanism not administered PPPs much like the IXPs troika can be for Internet broadband cloud bursts;
8. Join-up the ideated cradles of innovations by informing the strategic decision points of a Common Architecture across the Public policy life cycles (What till When) and Infrastructure developments (Macro, Functional and Operational) much like the Zackman Framework models.
9. Draw-up the focussed groups of interests by competing for attention of stakeholders much like the Google search rankings in integrating the formulated options (Public policy and e-Infrastructure codes) and their strategic management in the Info Eco Soc universe.
10. Take-up the finalised modes of implementations (analyses, allocations, assessments) by investing in the dynamic coalitions on the Internet issues ownerships and resolutions by access free talents much like the Open Source software developments.