By Eric M.K
Osiakwan
http://afrispa.skybuilders.com/users/Eric/blog.html
Given that the key philosophy and
ideology behind the framing of the Internet is for it to be decentralize and global, the argument can be
made that its form of governance (Internet Governance) must of necessity follow
the same protocol. The Internet is by definition a highly decentralize network
of computer networks globally communicating with each other using the Internet
Protocol and Transmission Control Protocol (IP/TCP) as a standard, this means
that the Net wants to be decentrally governed. However I see the World Summit on
Information Society (WSIS) in
The modeling of the Internet as
opposed to the old telephone network is such that the former is highly
decentralized and the intelligence of the network is at the edges of it whiles
the later is a highly centralized network with the intelligence at the core;
this is the big deferential between the two platforms. The deferential is not
just an engineering error or an inanimate discovery but a deliberate human
design that seeks to create a distributed yet extremely collaborative platform
for scaling global communication and commerce. The shift was necessary because
the historic order which centralized the intelligence at the center of the
network and demanded control from same was not scalable in the long term and was
actually breakable.
Hence in a simple way, the argument
can be advanced that your level of governance of the Internet is commensurate to
the “amount” of Network and Intelligence you contribute to the
global common. The thinking here is a paradigm shift from, the Internet is
something somewhere that we must connect to and since we connect to it then we
must be part of the governance of it to, the Internet is our network
(inter-network) and as we build, we contribute our intelligence and at the same
time we advance the governance of same within the globally agreed order of “self
policing”.
The framing of the Internet to be a
highly decentralized networks with the intelligence at the edges reflects a
change in the humans relations culture of the 20th century; in which
it was clear that we needed not to be centralized to govern but that we could
govern better in a “self governance” culture based on some code of conduct (for
the machines that is IP/TCP). The decentralization phenomenon has an inherent
logic that humans are unique and posse’s specificity and must be allowed to
participate in the global culture so that if the intelligence is at the edges of
the network then it means everyone has an opportunity to flourish based on his
uniqueness and specialization in the intelligence practice.
Further more the democratizing effect of the Internet is a definition of the governance structure where humans have advanced to a point where “self governance” is better practiced taking into consideration the uniqueness, specificity and most importantly the need to innovate and invent. Innovation and invention is at the core of human civilization and so if we can’t create a society where both are advanced freely within an agreed framework then we are actually making an argument against human civilization. We all agree that the Internet is a positive platform for globalization so why are we trying to kill the uniqueness, innovation and inventiveness of same - that is what our current centralized approach to the Internet Governance debate means and I can see a lot of people pushing that front.
My proposal is for us to step back a
second as we come to
Today, any technology that is
working on the Internet is decentralized or what we call thin-client,
centralized approaches don’t last too long on the platform because the inherent
logic is defeatist. Talk about Yahoo, MSN, Skype, ICQ etc they are all extremely
distributed and function better in that environment. Functionality on the
Internet is best in a distributed environment. The Internet is the best practice of
“distributed computing” and distributed computing is an exemplification of the
human social system that builds on the compound ratio of individual
intelligence.
The Internet is representative of an
epistemic regime that advances social inclusion or what some call “inclusive
capitalism” and that’s what the World Summit on Information Society is all about
so why are we advancing in such a summit a centralized and or closed approach to
the governance of the Internet? Inclusiveness is better advanced in a
distributed environment than otherwise or else we would not be advancing an
Information Society. Inclusive capitalism is predicated on the co-creative
ability inherent is individualistic intelligence so in the school of
co-creation, it is fair to meet your personal need if you can contribute
(co-create) to the global commons in an agreed framework.
I can hear the Internet wanting to
be decentrally governed and this is true of the current structure and order
because we all agree that Internet Governance is a broad term and practiced in
deferent forms and forums. For example; the Internet Engineering TaskForce
(IETF) builds the protocols that run the Internet; Coordination
of the unique identifiers is currently being handled in a multi-stakeholder
Public / Private Partnership known as ICANN, etc. There are other forms of
Internet Governance that are not addressed like issues related to cyber-crime,
spam, child pornography, hate-oriented content, the high costs of bandwidth in
developing countries etc. Where, when and who would address these issues that
are taking an extreme toll on the global common.
Now the question is by centralizing and or controlling the approach to IG do we address those unaddressed issues or we actually create a platform for them to be totally ignored? The later is most possible because it is clear that we have different institutions and forums because not a single institution or forum can address all the issues. The argument can be made that inclusiveness is necessary and can best be served in a distributed environment with an agreed protocol rather than in a centralized one, so let me submit that as we advance the cause in Tunis, let’s be careful not to break the Internet in an attempt to fix it.