Brief, informative literature review by Leonhard Dobusch on public domain, its conceptualisation, political regulation, and societal relevance. One of Leonhard’s arguments is that we have no systematic model about the real-world phenomena that can be categorised as public domain:
Empirically, however, a systematic ‘map’ of the public domain is still missing. We do not know yet, what public domain phenomena have the strongest practical relevance for actors in different fields. (p. 21)
This paper tried to provide a survey of our current scholarly knowledge on these issues, which might function as a starting point for further, particularly empirical investigations of the public domain. (p. 23)
Starting to fill these gaps was presumably one of the motivations for this paper. There is decent empirical research going on in that field, but indeed, we lack a systematic survey. The characteristics of public domain can also be found in empirical phenomena other than public domain or commons. Peer production – kind of a sibling of the aforementioned – might serve as an example.
—
Noteworthy is the locus dissertatii of this paper, the “1st Berlin Symposium on Internet and Society” hosted by Google’s German science proxy, the Internet & Society Institute at the Humboldt University Berlin, which is to be unleashed the day before.
You never know with these Foreign Affairs articles, how significant they will be for actual policy making. But they reveal at least what is being discussed in US foreign policy circles. Google’s ties with the US administration and the Department of State became visible for a larger audience in the course of the China-Google showdown earlier this year. The publication of Eric Schmidt’s and Jared Cohen’s article “The Digital Disruption – Connectivity and the Diffusion of Power” in the forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs only stresses this special relationship.
Foreign Affairs continues its tradition of articles on the strategic usage of information technology for US foreign policy. Back in 1996, Nye/Owens called for an “information umbrella” as a future means to allow the US to further lead an alliance of like-minded states in a post-“nuclear umbrella” world. Schmidt/Cohen discuss in a diplomatically sterile language the effects of “connection technologies” on politics, governments, and the diffusion of power among different actors. They have retained some techno-optimism:
In an era when the power of the individual and the group grows daily, those governments that ride the technological wave will clearly be best positioned to assert their influence and bring others into their orbits. And those that do not will find themselves at odds with their citizens.
But also within Western states, the notion of governance will further flourish:
Instead, governments, individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies will balance one another’s interests.
Looks like multi-stakeholderism gone ubiquitous.
—
If you don’t want to register with the foreignaffairs.com website, Stefaan Verhulst has the complete article.
“Everything that can be thought is thought at some time or another. Now or in the future.”
“Those things which were thought can never be unthought.”
Ralf Bendrath and I gave a presentation on “statehood and internet” at this year’s re:publica conference in Berlin. Re:publica is an annual conference for internet aficionados, bloggers, internet activists and, ever more so, politicians and public authority representatives involved in internet regulation. For the first time organised in 2007, it has by now risen to host some 2500 visitors and has been extensively covered (DE) by old-media outlets.
We used the opportunity of the China-Google/US conflict to discuss basic relationships between states and private actors, a question raised (both links DE) in the blogosphere and media, and some general perspectives of internet politics.
[…]