<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif"><br>
Internet exceptionalism is a techie's uptopia. Sociologically and
politically </font>it has little meaning or relevance. All or
most large insitutional systems are a network of, or join, private
spaces or actions or initiatives or bodies. Market (as a space of
legitimate trading) or media or health services or the education
sector, aren't they too interconnected private spheres? But how does
that exclude application of the concept of publicness (which in a
good part means some kind of government-ness) to these institutions
or institutional systems. Are they not regulated, are they not
taxed..... Internet is just another one of them. Unique in its own
way, as are also all others in their particular ways. <br>
<br>
Privateness or publicness is not the real issue in judging what is
unique about the Internet. It is its globalness, represented in the
phrase 'death of distance'. This features creates considerable
challenges to its governance and we do need to grapple with them.
However positing the Internet as intrinsically and uniquely
'private' and antithetical to any notions or institutions of
public-ness is either naive or, if deliberate, a part of the
neoliberal design of marketising all social institutions and
relationships in a manner that benefits the already most powerful.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 07:08 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E1C4E67.2080701@digsys.bg" type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On 12.07.11 15:19, Paul Lehto wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 7/12/11, Daniel
Kalchev<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:daniel@digsys.bg"><daniel@digsys.bg></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Internet has happened and was successful
decades ago, only because it is
<br>
the largest independently owned PRIVATE network of networks in
the
<br>
world. Nobody own the Internet. Many own small parts of it.
Governments
<br>
resisted Internet for many, many years, throwing large amounts
of money
<br>
and political pressure as a means to stop it's development.
<br>
</blockquote>
The internet originated in governmental efforts and could not
exist
<br>
without the robust legal infrastructure and some physical
<br>
infrastructure provided by governments. Granted, the government
<br>
physical infrastructure component is more limited than in many
other
<br>
areas, and governments have both been silent and/or had their
further
<br>
involvement in the internet resisted in some powerful quarters,
but
<br>
governmental silence or resistance to government does not mean
<br>
government doesn't play a formative role, past and present.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This all is very complex and can be viewed very differently,
depending on what you know about the history of Internet
development and different scenarios in different parts of the
world.
<br>
<br>
Internet "originated" in the US, in a form of a USG initiative, or
a project. That project however was severely limited to military
and scientific usage. Then Internet came to Europe and the rest of
the world and it is there where Internet developed into what we
know it today.
<br>
<br>
It was curious in say, 1992, when there was well developed
Internet infrastructure outside the US, providing access to
everyone, yet the "US part of the Internet" was strictly not
available to individuals or companies and all government contract
insisted on ISO protocol compliance - meaning, no TCP/IP
protocols.
<br>
<br>
Governments in most other countries were not much different. They
were completely ignorant and if they did something, that was to
try to protect the incumbent monopoly telecoms. Not surprisingly
-- in most countries governments had big say in that 'businesses'
operation -- or the other way around..
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">To give but one example: Who would deny
that ICANN was started by the
<br>
US government, or that even after "freeing" ICANN that the US
<br>
government in particular does not retain some forms of actual or
<br>
potential power or influence on ICANN?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
ICANN was created, because USG wanted to stop an outgoing attempt
to "steal" the Internet. I myself, although participating in the
agenda, could not claim I know all of the hidden agendas. But in
any case, the idea of ICANN to create private entity with wide
stakeholder participation. This was successful in some areas and
not much in other, but there are still chances.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Your CAPITALIZED assertion that the
internet is PRIVATE combined with
<br>
its attempt to give all credit for the internet to the private
sector
<br>
is a distortion of the facts, past and present. The internet is
<br>
essentially "more private" than other sectors.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
English is not my native language. My usage of 'private' is to
indicate non-governmental. For example, I view university
networks, part of the Internet as 'private', although in many
cases these are created with taxpayer money and in some countries
might be considered government controlled.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">But, what "private" really means in this
area is that large corporate
<br>
"stakeholders" in the internet directly and de facto make the
law of
<br>
the internet, via contracts and terms of service that are then
<br>
enforced by governmental courts around the world.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is true too. But again, my usage of 'private' does not
envision the large corporations, that often share the same board
of directors with a governments ministries and such. Internet is
successful, because it is not controlled by governments and by
large corporations. It is not so much about free trade, than for
unrestricted (unlicensed etc) connectivity. The 'small' internet
participants combined are more important than the few large
players -- who, like governments, come and go.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">And, nor COULD the internet be entirely
private, even in theory:
<br>
Even the most radical libertarian "free" market theorists agree
that a
<br>
rather robust series of governmental involvement in the form of
<br>
contract laws and so forth are necessary structures to support
"free,
<br>
private" markets. There's a great deal of choice in how those
<br>
contract rules are drafted, and debate as to what rules best
support
<br>
"free markets" even among like-minded theorists.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are several different issues here.
<br>
<br>
One issue is with the government's role to create the framework
for day to day life. This is primarily why governments exist and
why they are granted so much power. This is also the reason people
pay taxes, obey laws etc. The governments need to be careful with
the Internet however, because it is so much different than other
things they have to regulate.
<br>
<br>
The other issue is the desire of large corporations for more
power. They will do whatever it takes to lobby any government to
pass laws that suit their goals. So far, this has been fruitless,
because in a while they come to realize Internet is not reacting
the way they expect -- it is so much different.
<br>
<br>
If you realize that Internet is an voluntary interconnection of
networks, each of which is independently (privately) owned and
operated, that there are groupings for various reasons, common
goals, even fights or wars -- you will see how similar this is to
the society that consists of interconnected individuals. There
have been many different models to manipulate individuals, with
varying success. The Internet might have already passed the
capitalist and proletariat era...
<br>
<br>
But how all this relates to taxation is a different topic. :)
<br>
<br>
Daniel
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>