<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 07:50 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E1DA9AD.3090902@panamo.eu" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hello everybody,<br>
<br>
I have been lurking this list for some monthes. Here is my first
post.<br>
I'm a French Internet civil rights activist.<br>
Thank you very much for this very interesting discussion.<br>
<br>
Just a question, with a kind wink to Milton:<br>
don't you think that ICANN is working on trying to install itself
as a sort of global government collecting taxes? <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A very pertinent remark. And this should be read along with Paul
Lehto's excellent analysis of how (rather pernicious, and de facto
monopolistic and thus inescapable) commercial contracts are
replacing public or political governance on the Internet, which
analysis is so good that I cut-paste it at the end of this email. So
public taxes on Internet based services or applications are bad but
taxes collected by private entities in the name of service fees is
fine. This is the new private governance regime we are moving
towards, and the dangers that it poses to our social fabric,
especially to democracy, should be evident. This ideological divide
between neoliberalism (that the propositions advocating
marketisation even of governance indicate) and democracy is what is
really behind the current discussion.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
Paul's analysis from his email earlier today<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>If one wants to see really intense and comprehensive
regulation of<br>
behavior, check out corporate franchising contracts, which
insist on<br>
control of every little facet of human business behavior.
Government<br>
by no means has a monopoly on intense regulation backed up by
the<br>
force of law. Corporations do intense regulation routinely, and
call<br>
it all good, and economically efficient and competitive, etc.,
in the<br>
franchising context to give just one example.<br>
<br>
Milton, I'd bet that the sum total of all pages of internet
regulation<br>
via corporate contracts and terms of service exceeds the sum
total of<br>
all pages of governmental internet regulation. Both are
enforceable<br>
in courts of law.<br>
<br>
So what makes corporate regulation superior? It is more
voluminous and<br>
detailed, and no user of the internet has any meaningful say or
right<br>
to be heard in the creation of the corporate contract terms. How
many<br>
contractual fine print consumer contract clauses have you
reviewed<br>
lately? They are as aggravating as the craziest and stupidest<br>
government regulation, and people have essentially zero recourse
with<br>
private corporations, which is worse than the attenuated kinds
of<br>
recourse we have in functioning democratic governments.<br>
<br>
It's critical to keep in mind at all times, in my opinion, that<br>
Corporate regulation and control of the internet is precisely
what we<br>
get in every sphere in which the government (whether for good
reasons<br>
or bad) exercises the "absence of control" Milton Mueller is
arguing<br>
for. This corporate regulation via detailed contractual fine
print is<br>
progress? I think not.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">(ends)
</pre>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4E1DA9AD.3090902@panamo.eu" type="cite"> <br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
--<br>
<small>Dominique Lacroix<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dl@panamo.eu">dl@panamo.eu</a><br>
Société européenne de l'Internet<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.ies-france.eu/projet/">http://www.ies-france.eu/projet/</a><br>
15, rue de l'Ancienne Comédie<br>
75006 Paris<br>
+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14<br>
</small><br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>