<!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">
<br>
<br>
On Friday 15 July 2011 02:11 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg" type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On 15.07.11 03:57, Paul Lehto wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Now Mike, when you point to a subset of the people affected by
CIRA
<br>
(domain registrants) and note that they can be voting members if
they
<br>
wish, but ignore the mere user who is also governed to some
extent by
<br>
CIRA, and then call that exclusion "reasonably democratic",
you're
<br>
really saying that a largish aristocracy is "reasonably
democratic."
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is all true, except you miss the whole point. Internet
resources are private, not public.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is the crux of the disagreement. Internet is public, not
private. This is why, for instance, we meet at the UN Internet
Governance Forum to discuss its governance. I did give what may be
the extreme example, that the 'market' is public while the
enterprises participating in the market are private. Similarly the
public Internet connects private spaces. To give just one example,
if you need the recent FCC directives on network neutrality, you
will clearly see how the Internet as we know and speak of is
considered a public internet. <br>
<br>
However, I am obliged, though also a bit shocked with the starkness
of it, that you have clearly explained below many people's thinking
and ideology about what the Internet is, especially many of those
people who are closely associated with its governance today. This is
the ideology that organisation like ours seeks to fight
professionally. We see the grave danger in using the influence of
the Internet over our world as a key neoliberal strategy towards
marketising most things, if not all thing. <br>
<br>
You ask, is this arrangement democratic... No absolutely not 9I
know you yourself are clear that it is not democratic). And I
understand that the civil society here, and elsewhere, is largely
for democracy vis a vis the governance of the Internet as for other
things. <br>
<br>
Speaking of apple gardens, and private guards, and if you want to
join the club you may, is such a beautiful analogy. incidentally, we
are completing a paper on 'open but not public: membership of
informaiton society as a club good'. And you seem to be clear, yes,
it is a club good. Whatever else, thanks for providing such clarity
to the debate :).<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4E1FFD3C.5080808@digsys.bg" type="cite">
<br>
Let me try one more time. Please note we may have language
differences and I claim no proper terminology knowledge of
'democracy theory'.
<br>
<br>
What you call democracy is a system, where the public gives up
certain of their rights to elected third party (or parties) but
reserves the right to replace them by voting, if they misbehave.
<br>
<br>
In the case of a ccTLD manager and their procedures, or 'law' (the
case you make with CIRA, being 'non-democratic'), there is no
'right' to possess a .ca domain name. For anyone. There does not
exist a right for anyone, to use Internet, both because Internet
as such is a collection of private resources and because those who
use it did not gave up any 'rights' to it's governors.
<br>
<br>
An real-life example. Imagine you walk in an area full of gardens.
Some gardens are better, some are worse. But none of them is
yours. None of them is 'public'. All are private gardens. For the
most part, you don't even have an idea who the owner is. You go
forward and pick an apple form one garden. Nothing happens... You
then go fill few baskets, cut few trees. Eventually out of a
sudden guards come along and demand you obey certain rules.
<br>
<br>
You did not elect who those guards are. You cannot vote to replace
them because you didn't like how they handled you. Eventually,
people who planted that garden (think, the .ca domain) and the
people who regularly take care of it and visit it (think, .ca
domain registrants, registrars etc.) elected them - they pay for
the guards etc. If you wish to have your say, you must join that
'club'.
<br>
<br>
Is this democratic? :)
<br>
<br>
I see no way how Internet can switch from being private to being
public. If it was say, AOL, the US Government might nationalize
it, but it is spread all over the world with all kinds of
stakeholders possessing small pieces of it.
<br>
<br>
About the only way I see this happening, is a third world war and
the winner (the rats, they say) making the Internet democratic.
(or parts of it, really)
<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>