<!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="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 15.07.11 14:09, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E201FE8.4000907@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I explicitly mentioned 'resources' there.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4E201FE8.4000907@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is how the human world goes, for many thousands years. One
group discovers a new good, then others come along and want a piece
of it too, eventually both groups give up their freedom for
'governance' and the next Empire is born.<br>
<br>
Just random thoughts:<br>
It is interesting to note, as you did, that the Internet is giving
so much power to those who buy into the freedom idea. When there is
high concentration of power, there is always change.<br>
History always goes in circles (some hope it is a spiral, but this
has not yet proven) and that may mean that democracy as such is
moving to 'history' while some 'old' form of sharing the public
goods will resurrect. Who knows. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4E201FE8.4000907@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Those who seek Governance just seek power and control.<br>
<br>
Human society is a collection of independent individuals that agree
to abide by common law. That law is typically local (country, state,
city, family). Internet is global. I keep repeating this, as this is
where the problem with the current system is.<br>
<br>
If the current system wants to preserve the status-quo, it must
restrict it's regulation attempts to things that matter locally. Or
change.<br>
<br>
If someone says they want democracy in a ccTLD registry (or, an ISP,
or an hosting company -- they are NOT different from Internet point
of view, just different parts of the infrastructure), then what they
say is that they want control over the operation of that
infrastructure. ICANN, unfortunately is moving into the direction of
becoming a para-TLD registry, instead of policy and consensus
building forum it was supposed to be. Asking for democracy in the
new ICANN is the same thing.<br>
<br>
I have yet another theory that relates to Internet and possible
future development, based on the concept that humans are
multi-dimensional creatures. But we have gone already way off-topic.<br>
<br>
<br>
By the way, I fail to understand why we argue about the obvious. A
ccTLD registry (say CIRA) operates under existing law, that is built
and enforced by democratically elected forces. In this environment
CIRA is just like an individual. That may be an very clever,
resourceful and valuable for the society individual, but still --
just part of the whole society that had submitted to being subject
to democratic powers. We don't require each individual to be subject
to democracy (say, <br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</body>
</html>