[Chapter-delegates] The Future Internet

[Fatima Lasay]

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

>  (warning - this is long)

I am very well used to reading very long emails! :)

Thanks, Olivier, for your thoughts. And to Artur and Fred Baker, and our 
colleagues from ISOC Pakistan.

I will send my comments and ideas in a short while. In the meantime, I 
would like to express my own interest in a good testing of the User 
Centric Internet Model as well as the simulation of various other models 
(yet to be invented/articulated) in the quest to envision the Future 
Internet.

I think that it is also important that we assess the impact of the 
Internet on the daily life of people in our communities, and not merely 
rely on economic indicators such as GNPs. There are many entities in the 
Philippines now, for example, who are concerned with proliferating 
Internet access up to the remote and poor villages in the country. 
Internet access has become some sort of development indicator as well. 
How responsibile and accountable are we really for the *real* 
on-the-ground impact of such initiatives?

Below is a reply from one of our members, Trevor Batten, in ISOC 
Philippines about the "Future Internet." It is actually a reply to 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy's previous posting.

Trevor raises the cultural aspect of visions of the Future Internet. His 
high concern is the monolithic nature of a globalised system of 
consumerism powerfully supported by the Internet.

Best wishes,
Fatima


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Re: [Isoc-ph-members] The Future Internet
Date:     Sat, 9 May 2009 21:52:41 +0800
From:     Trevor Batten <trevor at tebatt.net>
Reply-To:     ISOC-PH Members <isoc-ph-members at isoc.ph>
To:     isoc-ph-members at isoc.ph, chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org


On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:46:13 +0800
>  ......but more effectively by preparing a blue print, complete with
>  arguments as to how telecoms and other businesses can prosper well
>  within the Internet Model and with arguments to show how Security
>  concerns could be addressed without introducing draconian
>  legislations. If we don't have one, it is time we prepared one.


I guess that it is certainly true that people need to think seriously 
-and very fundamentally about such things:

Do, for example, telecom's really need to prosper (in relation to who 
-or what?) -and is "security" a monolithic concept (i.e. does it make a 
difference who or what is being "secured")?

Personally, I suspect these are issues of (general philosophical) 
"governance" and not specifically "internet governance" problems. So the 
best way to deal with them may well be to first think about the kinds of 
different ways (different kinds of) society might be structured 
(individually and collectively) -and then look to see how this might be 
reflected (implemented, created or rejected) in the internet system. Or 
perhaps this social thinking exercize might at least provide a useful 
"touchstone" and perhaps a set of conceptual tools that could be used to 
approach the problem of "internet governance" itself in a more informed way.


Personal experience (both on and off the internet) also suggests that 
included in there somewhere, there may need to be given special 
attention to the rules and procedures involved in (effective) debate and 
practical problem solving. It is my personal belief, that it is in this 
area that a continuing division between the "techies" and the "socials" 
is the most disasterous.

Also where do the "culturals" fit in?


In other words, there is perhaps not a single (complex) problem -but a 
nexus of interelated problems -which (theoretically at least) may seem 
to need simultanious solutions in different areas -in order to 
facilitate the bootstrapping of a (semi-) self-sustaining system which 
can then be fine-tuned later by the various participants, as the need 
arises.


If all living things evolve naturally and change their environment -then 
there is never any (fixed) solution to any given problem. The best that 
we can do is to establish a dynamic protocol for modifying the system as 
it develops. This is why one cannot separate the technological protocols 
from the social ideals.

On the other hand, we surely do not wish to create a system that allows 
a tyranical system to creatively adapt itself to any attempt to reform 
the system. This is why one cannot separate the social ideals from the 
technical protocols.

Perhaps, for our own survival, we must not create a single global system 
that destroys all creative diversity. This is why we cannot separate the 
"cultural" from the technical and the social.

Presumably, people also need to eat (and not only notionally enrich 
themselves via a virtualised economy that is independant of the material 
systems that it is supposed to represent and facilitate). This is why we 
cannot separate the "cultural" from the "economic" (and why "culture" as 
lifestyle is unsustainable).


Unfortunately, I seriously suspect that the monolithic nature of a 
globalised system of consumerism (powerfully supported by the internet) 
has already severly damaged the diversity and potential depth of human 
intellectual capability and problem solving skills. I sincerely believe 
that we should at least concider that instead of innocently promoting 
the "internet for all" -its use may actually need to be accompanied by a 
powerful health warning.

In the long run the internet (in its current form) may well prove to be 
more dangerous to public (mental) health than smoking or excessive drinking.


trevor batten
<www.tebatt.net>