[discuss] Another couple of items

Tue Jan 14 03:58:41 UTC 2014

On Tuesday 14 January 2014 04:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At risk of being labelled an Ig professional, which sounds like a bad 
> thing to be, I wish to comment a little.
>
> On 13-Jan-14 17:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I've posted another couple of items that may be of interest.
>>
>> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ClassifyingLandscape.pdf
>
>
>> Three types of issue:
>> 1. Matters of public interest regardless of the Internet;
>> 2. Matters of some public interest specifically linked to
>> the Internet (“boundary issues”);
>> 3. Technical matters of limited public interest
>
> Here I think you miss one type which varies from you others:
>
> 4. Issues that while of public interest regardless, are transformed by 
> the Internet.

I agree. Category one of Brian is in fact not relevant as being 
completely outside of the IG space that is to be considered here... His 
category one should be replaced by the category suggested by Avri. And 
so I will count the categories as

1. Issues of wide public interest on which the Internet has a 
significant impact (a modified version of Avri's type) - this has been 
called as the space of Internet-related public policies by the Tunis agenda

2. Boundary or interface issues -  Issues at the boundary/interface of 
(1) and (3) or those that provide linkages between the two - and 
possibly some higher level principles can be abstracted in a manner that 
while public policy considerations are fulfilled, the needed 
independence of the technical management of the Internet is protected 
(modifed version of Brain's 2) (please also see the formulation in para 
69 and 70 of Tunis agenda)

3. Technical matters which can largely be undertaken on some kind of 
purely efficiency related and such neutral criteria, on within larger 
clearly codified public policy principles.

It will be useful to agree on some kind of categories of issues before 
we go the needed / appropriate institutional mechanisms to address them...

parminder

>
> These go beyond the boundary condition you define.
>
> You also seem to not admit to the degree to which technology cannot be 
> separated from its public impact and that this is what produces public 
> interest.  And to some degree, each option in a protocol may have a 
> social impact even if they only appear to be trivial technical choices 
> of flipping one bit one way or another.
>
> Until we have done impact analysis of the technology, we do not know 
> to what degree there are legitimate public interests attached to a 
> particular bit of tech.  But there is an overriding public interest in 
> knowing that impact and having the discussions.
>
> Facile phrases we don't really define well, especially things like net 
> neutrality, and the intentionally ambiguous language of diplomats? 
> Sure we Ig professionals* have a real problem with that.
>
>
> avri
>
> * which I define as anyone who has ever been paid for doing something 
> Igish.  Many are just amateurs, who do it for the love.
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>