[governance] Net neutrality on mobiles

[Paul Lehto]

On 8/15/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
> I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two
> conditions are met
> 1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not
> try to seek to supplant it

This above is a  reasonable condition, given that replacement of
democracy by multi-stakeholderism (no matter to what extent it may or
may not mimic democracy) is a replacement/revolution against
democracy.

Per the globally agreed-to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
only legitimate source of power is power derived from the people as a
whole, i.e. republics and democracies. See Article 21, UN Declaration
of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop
 Furthermore, everyone has the equal right to participate not only in
elections but also in public service.

THE UNACCEPTABLE CONSEQUENCE OF LEAVING INTERNET GOVERNANCE TO
UNRESTRAINED CONTRACTUAL FREEDOM:

If Parminder and I, whether we be poor or billionaires, sign a
contract that results in KARL's rights becoming second-class, such as
by increasing our internet speed at his expense, Karl is now a
second-class internet "citizen" and he's had nothing to say about it.
I will only say that this abuse of contract violates virtually every
norm, law, principle and right related to the fundamental equality of
human beings, the fundamental right of democracy, and even violates
business contract law, which provides as one of its cardinal laws that
contracts only affect the parties that SIGN them, not third parties.
(Third parties in narrow situations may BENEFIT from a contract but
certainly may not have their rights negatively impacted against their
consent).

The above is just like a private contract between two corporations to
make sectors of public internet users into second class or third class
citizens.  It's completely illegitimate.

Now, if one were to further suggest that it is undesirable for the
government to intervene to protect equality in situations like the
above, or that the government is even powerless to do so, is a
remarkable and even shocking proposition.

Unlike Karl's framework in which users are left to themselves, what we
are really talking about here is two or more big users getting
together and negatively impacting the rights and experiences of those
not allowed at the table of democracy.

The one and only way to fudge with the above principles prohibiting
the creation of second class citizens that has been able to survive at
all is illustrated by this example:   There is a desire for extra
speed (for example, on highway toll-ways) and a fast lane is
constructed and passes for that fast lane are made available for
purchase on an EQUAL basis by all people (ignoring the reality that
some can't afford this "equality.")  Here again, the principle of
equality is preserved though only by ignoring economic inequalities.
In any case, this seeming exception is VERY controversial in all of my
experience.

In a nutshell, contracts can not impact negatively the rights of
people who don't agree to that contract.  Yet this is one major type
of contract being contemplated.  OF course freedom of contract exists
under the assumption that it doesn't hurt anybody else, as it usually
doesn't.

So, Karl suggests that "users" should dictate the form of the
internet, and I reply that this can only apply when users are
impacting ONLY themselves and no other parties.

Karl also suggests that "unequal" treatment  is desirable or necessary
sometimes.  Here again, private contract is not a legitimate way to
set up inequality.  Assuming it is ever legitimate to set up second
class citizenship in any respect, that would be a public policy and
rights question for government.

Of course, absent effective public intervention, those with market
power may succeed in setting up inequality and negatively impacting
others' rights and experiences, but the existence of any such
examples, if any, begs the question of their legality and legitimacy.
After all, things like slavery have persisted in the private sector to
this day despite universal condemnation by law in the public sector.
-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t