[governance] Can governmental powers be limited?

[Avri Doria]

On 22 apr 2007, at 17.19, John Mathiason wrote:

> I am afraid that if governments are foxes, they are already in  
> charge of the henhouse.

That is just it.  While they may be in control of most henhouses,  
they do not yet control this one.   True, the US gov't does maintain  
gating control, but I believe that the response to that is not to add  
more government control, but to move away from any government control.

> The issue is not that (unless, as I said in an earlier e-mail, we  
> can convince them to repeal the Treaty of Westphalia or invest some  
> other institution with the task of ensuring order and justice in  
> human transactions).

Globalization is already obviating many of the notions of Westphalian  
sovereignty.  I do not understand why civil society would want to  
argue for more nationalist control of resources.  Governments have  
proven themselves, time and again, to be totally incapable of dealing  
with resource issues in anything other then power of the strongest.

> This responsibility for order which is one reason that the US  
> Declaration of Independence stated "We hold these truths to be self- 
> evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by  
> their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are  
> Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these  
> rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just  
> powers from the consent of the governed..."

Putting aside the need to believe in a creator to accept any of that,
history has shown us the falsehood of that last sentence.  How could  
anyone who has watched the US government over the past years,  
possibly quote the US DoI as an argument for the justice of  
government interference in the Internet?

The only shred of relevance in the US DoI that i can see is that if  
the governed do not capitulate and give their consent, then they  
cannot be governed, only coerced.  So why would we wish to capitulate  
to governments?  Bad enough we have to deal with the supremacy of  
industry, so much worse to deal with government.

I see the movement toward government control of IG as a step  
backward.  Complete control by industry is a problem, but the  
solution is not to go backwards in history and give the reins to  
governments.

>
> The issue, then, is what just powers should be exercised by  
> governments regarding the Internet

 From my point of view, none.  We must accept that they have control  
over the networks that lie totally within their national borders, and  
that the struggle for a free network within most countries still has  
a long ways to go.  But I see no reason to acquiesce to any sort of  
Inter-Governmental control over the Internet itself.

> and how should the consent of the governed be reflected.

I believe that governments rarely reflect the consent of the  
governed, though they do reflect the acquiescence of the coerced.   
Again I ask, why would civil society want to subject the Internet to  
control by governments? I am not arguing that governements should not  
be allowed an advisory role, but I do not see any reason to subject a  
transnational entity to Westaphalian sovereignty.

> Here we have the dilemma that State behavior is essentially self- 
> regulating and that States determine the rules.  However, there is  
> (and always has been, but clearly increasing in our era) influence  
> on the rules agreed by non-State actors.

Only as beggars at the feast.

> Some could argue that the strong role given to multi-stakeholder  
> processes at WSIS was the most lasting result of that conference.

Multi-stakeholder processes, (note: i have always included  
individuals in my definition of stakeholders - the only problem I  
have is how to include them scalably) where the exception at WSIS.   
As i remember it was a constant struggle to even get permission to  
speak or be in the room when deliberations were ongoing.  It will be  
a perpetual struggle to wrest any sort of role from governments.   
Take a look at the amount of CS participation in the WISI ECOSOC  
based follow-up process or the ITU, before putting too much faith in  
the good will of governments.

> The debate around a Framework Convention turns on how and to what  
> an extent States can agree on the self-limiting rules that will  
> provide for an orderly, open and secure Internet.

That will be something novel.  I believe states will only limit  
themselves when forced to.

>
> We will certainly lay out these considerations, along with the  
> points made by Milton, in our promised paper.

I look forward to it.


a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance