Interessante discussione sulla lista Internet Policy di ISOC. Riporto qui l’intervento di parminder di itforchange,net, che ha ricevuto diversi consensi.
A seguire una riflessione sulla metafora del “walled-garden’ vs “colonial power”. — Beppe > Begin forwarded message: > > From: parminder via InternetPolicy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] What ISOC is doing > Date: 13 July 2021 at 10:09:55 CEST > To: [email protected] > Reply-To: parminder <[email protected]> > > Andrew, > > Thanks for your and others' useful responses. > > Before I go ahead I want to clarify two things, because misjudgements > regarding them can cloud the reading of my responses. > > (1) ISOC like any other organization of course has the right to define and > circumscribe its mandate and activities. It cannot accommodate everyone's > desires about what it should be doing, This said, the mandate definition and > nature of activities that follow must be rationally defended. This is true > for all public interest organization, but even more applicable to ISOC as a > kind of special public interest organization -- something I will not go into > elaborating here. > > (2) I am glad that the Internet initially developed and grew somewhat > surreptitiously, as far as big commercial and political interests are > concerned, which gave it the time and space to have defined around it norms > and governance structures that were informed of certain values of control at > peripheries, permission-less innovation, and the such. (Will come to this > again later). I fully endorse and support these, and have no doubt that the > world would have been much worse off without them > > Now, taking from the second point... Lets be clear that it is not something > automatically and essentially technical about the Internet that is > responsible for what the Internet is. Whatever this statement means. I think > it is absurd, but that absurdity IMHO extends to much of ISOC's take on 'the > Internet way'. What your 'Internet way' describes as the five basic > properties (of an Internet we like) are all there because some people wanted > it that way.. Why they wanted it that way has to do with how, where and in > whose hands early Internet was born and developed. That it was a publicly > funded project had as much to do with it as the fact that Internet's first > use was for academic networking... Not to deny the role of all those valiant > actors who personally and organizationally defended the values that got built > early on into the Internet, as a cumulative result of which we are here, and > not elsewhere with digital communication technologies, which would have come > one way or the other ... > > My point is, there is nothing essential, technical, about the Internet that > had to be the way it is -- there are individual and organizational value, and > shall I say, political, choices. I understand that ISOC is some way > represents and embodies those early values and valiant acts behind the > Internet. This is what I respect ISOC most about. > > What is however unfortunate is that rather than take forward such great > 'human' values and choices in a dynamic manner, ISOC wants to deify them into > some technical, self-evident and natural construct of 'the Internet'. > Contrary to what current ISOC may think, rather than respecting those early > human choices this has the effect to denying their human-ness and > social-ness. Very few things could be more disrespectful of the involved > people and organizations than this. > > This is what makes me -- and I suspect many others -- choke on hearing > expressions like 'the Internet way' or, to quote you, 'building, promoting > and defending the Internet' ... One would much rather hear you say 'promoting > and defending the values that underlie the Internet'. If ISOC understands > this shift much would have been achieved for a start. > > The difference is not superficial -- it has a deep social and political > significance, and that is my main point here. Under the technical > essentialism of 'the Internet' -- as a kind of natural deity -- is buried a > lot that is of a political, sociological and cultural nature. All of which is > sought to be hidden through this surface technical essentialism of 'the > Internet way' and 'defending the Internet'. > > Coming down to more practical implications of all this; you and ISOC, if I > may say so without offending, somewhat conveniently, keep switching between > an ideal type of the Internet and its manifest practical aspects, as suits > the purpose. Let me take two examples, one related to the nature of problems > on the Internet, and another related to its governance. > > You say below that "There _might_ be erosion of the critical properties due > to the concentration of traffic in a particular application, but that is a > separate question". > > OK, fine, if you stick to this stand. But what about ISOC's advocacy on > encryption employed, say, by an Instant Messaging service. ISOC indeed works > a lot in this area. (Do not get me wrong. I am all for e-to-e encryption, and > am part of ISOC's encryption coalition too. ).... Why that is an 'Internet' > issue, but say DRM embedded in web standards (a debate ISOC passed) or > Google's latest move to replace cookies in Chrome with another private system > (an ongoing debate that ISOC's shows no interest in) are not 'Internet' > issues? > > Or, all the efforts by digital giants to keep internet traffic within their > captive applications -- whether it is FB's 'Instant Article' or Google's > "Accelerated Mobile Pages' -- not an Internet issue, and not a violation of > the 'Internet way'? > > IETF made email interoperability standards, at a time of Internet's early > innocence, when commercial interests were not so strong to come in its way.. > By the time it was about social media and instant messaging (IM), the > commercial overhang on the Internet was too heavy for IETF and ISOC to push > interoperability standards? Suddenly these become non Internet issues? Of > course at this stage, such was increasingly the control over the Internet of > a few digital biggies that voluntary adoption would likely not go too far ... > It is here when mandated interoperability comes in, when law comes in aid of > the 'right' technical architecture ... But ISOC has only known that law and > governments militate against Internet architecture, and cannot aid it -- a > fully wrong conception - which is why it never crosses ISOC/ IETF's mind > that, for instance, IM interoperability standards should be developed, and > coupled with advocacy with governments for mandating interoperability (with > standards development for it left to outside, IETF, like bodies ... Is this > not an Internet issue - something promoting the 'Internet way'? > > Doing such standards development coupled with policy advocacy would be to > 'promote and defend the Internet' and to go 'the Internet way'. But as I > suggested, convenient choices are made -- dictated by extraneous reasons (i > can discuss them, but let me not digress). Whatever one likes is somehow fit > under the 'Internet way' and the unquestionable deity of the Internet, and > whatever one doesnt like gets excluded. > > Meanwhile, the very exploration of what choices are made, which not, is > blocked at an higher level, taking the cover of some things (arbitrarily) > being essentially Internet, and others not ... That, to say the least, is > very frustrating ... and to go further, if one is to be brutally frank, > actually borders on deviousness, > > The second example I said I will bring from the area of Internet governance: > > It is very fine for ISOC to stick to some layers or aspects of Internet as > its mandates, and rest not being its mandate .. But then it should also stick > to commenting on, and participating in, only such governance processes that > pertain to that narrow technical layer, and none lese.. > > Does ISOC do that? The resounding answer is, NO ... I have sat in many many > UN working groups and other settings where ISOC reps thoroughly side and > conspire with US and its allies to keep the global Internet essential > ungoverned... I have personal knowledge of a long history of this, which I > can share sometime .. But the point here is, again convenient self-serving > (or big interests serving) choices are made, which contravene the otherwise > narrow construction of the Internety mission that ISOC argues for itself. > > That, dear Andrew, of running with the hare and hunting with the hound, is > the problem. Not whether ISOC has a right or not to chose a narrow > 'technical' mission. > > ISOC can indeed very well choose a narrow, technical mandate, and stick to > it... But when convenient back and forths are done, that too in an area of > globally most intense power constestation, that would be questioned ... And > the big political and economic interests that get implicated and served will > be brought up ... The cover of innocence -- of some kind of essential > technical nature of the Internet that alone is being defended -- will be > examined, and taken apart.. > > regards > > parminder > > PS: And yes, I did go through the material on Internet way of networking. > Thanks > > > > On 11/07/21 8:15 am, Andrew Sullivan via InternetPolicy wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I note that some others have answered your questions, and AFAICT I agree >> with them. A couple more remarks below. >> >> On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 07:51:04PM +0530, parminder via InternetPolicy >> wrote: >> >>> That is an interesting concept... Will like to know what 'Internet' or >>> 'good Internet' is for you/ ISOC, against which alone any impact >>> assessment can be marked. >> >> Have you looked at the toolkit and the Internet Way of Networking materials? >> It is intended that these sorts of questions (and the others that you asked >> later in your mail, which I have elided from this) are answered by those >> materials. I would do an injustice if I tried to summarize here. But, if >> there is something that isn't answered for you in the materials, it would be >> important to know that, since additional work is happening right now. >> >> Note that this is about _the Internet_, and not about everything vaguely >> related to the Internet. So, for instance, one might think that >> concentration of ownership is bad for society and so on, and maybe >> also bad for the Internet. The toolkit is intended to be useful in >> analyzing the extent to which such a state of affairs, or any regulatory >> action intended to address it, affects the Internet itself, and not all the >> social implications that come from that. Similarly, if there is an >> application (call it "Blither") where people can post their thoughts, and a >> particular national government has a lot of negative things to say >> about postings on Blither, that would _not_ be in scope for the Internet Way >> of Networking project, because it is but one application that happens to use >> the Internet. That is true even if that particular application is a very >> significant portion of the global Internet traffic. There _might_ be >> erosion of the critical properties due to the concentration of traf >> fic in a particular application, but that is a separate question. >> >>> (We all know what good environment is.) >> >> Really? My impression is that such a definition is far from universally >> agreed upon. >> Best regards, >> >> A >> > _______________________________________________ > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions > or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login > and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. > - > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: > https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list [email protected] https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
