<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 18.08.11 15:18, Paul Lehto wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Daniel Kalchev's point, in a nutshell, appears to be that the
'internet is too big to regulate by any single democratic entity.'</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
My point is rather, that any 'democracy' is only possible within
well defined borders.<br>
As long as Internet spans those borders, the said democracy cannot
be enforced.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> He challenges me to point to an example. </pre>
</blockquote>
To reiterate:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Let me ask again: how does a "democratically elected" entity in
one country have any power in another country, where that same
entity is NOT democratically elected to have that power?</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">My point is that the internet does not have a credible 'anarchy option', and it relies upon legal frameworks of DEMOCRATICALLY determined laws to operate, even when a
hands off, laissez faire policy is pursued by governments.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have never, ever advocated anarchy in any form. Nor I have
advocated abandoning of Governments and especially their duties.<br>
<br>
It is your choice to call private, non-corporate management
'anarchy'.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thus, we only have a choice of regulation in pursuit of the public interest via democratic laws, or regulation by private interests via contracts and the like. Both public and private regulation outcomes rely on democratically passed laws for their very existence. The internet does not and cannot run in a legal black hole of zero law.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, as long as you assume that governance == enforcement.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Whatever problems may exist in the challenges of global internet
policy in terms of democratically passed laws having sufficient global
reach to satisfy Mr. Kalchev personally APPLY EQUALLY to the 'hands
off' approach of laissez faire, which still relies upon a huge number
of laws from numerous countries.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
These laws govern the relationship of the entities, that use
Internet, outside of Internet. This is because outside Internet
there are borders, there are local and more global laws, local and
more global Governments (democratically elected or not -- with the
same effect as to their effective powers).<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's fairly simple at bottom: Shall we choose democracy, or something
else for internet governance??</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why you insist there is no democracy in Internet? It is just
covering specific areas, exactly like the 'real world' democracy
does.<br>
<br>
If you speak of the world outside Internet, divided by borders,
governments and laws --- how you imagine every one related to
Internet (in theory, every human being on Earth), having a
democratic vote for a single planetary democratic Government -- thus
having universal democracy and universal democratic laws.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> The plus for democracy is that we can
still choose laissez faire policy after appropriate debate and vote,
and reverse that choice later on, if desired. On the other hand,
giving up on democracy as unworkable is a revolutionary coup d'etat,
with yet another revolution needed to get democratic power back.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
So we come back to my original statements on the topic....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I sit here in one place and contract with websites whose contracts recite in one that
US-California law applies, another says New York law, a third Japanese law and a fourth may demand Chinese law. Even lawyers don't know what these all mean, even if they know a couple.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is always the "common sense law" -- unfortunately, I don't
believe it is something lawyers study or apply. :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD=1OvcGuCbxKnpkaH_eovRhOqHeX=vuZ-WNw4tkDb8_TMM9_A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The law, under Any system of government constitutes another kind of
'operating system' without which no one would have felt safe enough to
privately invest in the internet at the levels seen in the last few
decades.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is interesting... My observation is exactly opposite. Many have
invested - collectively, a lot more than the richest corporation has
ever invested in Internet. Yet all these individuals did not care
much under what law this happened or what their profit would be. I
understand this is different way of thinking from Corporate America,
but it did involve some bright US fellows as well.<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong - I will be more than happy, if there could eb
democratic form of Internet governance. I just see none, two decades
since Internet has become accessible to anyone and changing
everyone's life.<br>
</body>
</html>