[governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights?

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 30.07.11 02:46, Paul Lehto wrote:
> If this "private, non-corporate governance" works at all well, I'd 
> first have to ask For Whom does it Work Well?

Glad you asked. It has worked for over a billion people, worldwide. The 
Internet. Would you deny that?

Even the fact that today, you, personally have the ability to share your 
ideas with many people, without restrictions and at minimal costs is 
only because of this private governance. Here I address all of 'you' 
reading this, including myself.

None of this would be possible if the Internet was government 
controlled. Or controlled by large corporations.

> I realize that
> educated, talented and resourceful few such as those on this list and
> our colleagues may sometimes convince a Microsoft to do a minor
> change, but this is mostly because the lawyers for Microsoft have
> reserved truly sweeping rights and won't really be hurt at all by a
> minor concession.

Governance is not about persuading anybody anything. Governance is all 
about making sure resources are used responsibly and that there are 
enough resources for those who need them.

In my country we have a saying: The one who pays orders the music.


>    Even despotic kings are known to do likewise, it is
> referred to as "the Grace of the king."  Kings save people's lives
> from time to time, and all that.  But it's only when and if they want
> to, and it's not pursuant to the rule of law.

Ah.. I understand now. :)

Do you know, that decades ago, some "me too" people created a legend 
about DNS: John Postel is the King and all ccTLD managers are his 
vassals. Funny enough, those same people later tried to create their own 
kingdom in a similar fashion, but eventually failed... Because Internet 
is different.

> I always concede that an at least apparently more "efficient" and
> workable private governance or private dictatorship can be set up.
> One might set themselves up as the autocratic dictator of a listserv
> and many or even most might find that quite workable if I often act in
> the mode like one of Plato's philosopher kings and regularly dispense
> at least some grace.

Very good example. Anyone may set up an mailing list on Internet. This 
has been true at least for the last twenty years. The cost to become 
governor, or dictator is indeed very small. And your power is absolute! 
Internet is such a heaven for those who want power :)

> But this is no comfort to those in the minority
> (or majority) who have their rights and dignity denied by the autocrat
> or corporate plutocrat, and in most instances (except where
> democratically-passed laws still apply) there's nothing that anybody
> outside the corporation can do about it, except beg for grace.

Let's forget for a moment your fixation on corporations. Those who are 
unhappy, can have their recourse on the Internet. Of course! They can 
set up their own mailing list, pretty much like the dictator's. And yes, 
they will then become dictators too.

What is more, they even have the choice to not be dictators. They could 
have democratic elections, by their membership, or better yet, by their 
town, state or country people. If they are true democrats, of course 
they will turn to a democratically elected Government, to run the 
mailing list.
The small boring question remains is who will do the actual work and who 
will pay the bill, but we need not worry about this, as long as it is 
all democratic.

> You might not literally be down on your knees with Microsoft, but unless
> you are arguing based on democratically-passed laws with the actual or
> implied threat of legal action behind it, you are truly at the grace
> and mercy of Microsoft.

Or, you might just not care about Microsoft. Or Oracle. Or IBM. Or 
McDonnalds.

> If one is part of, or connected to, what amounts to an internet 
> aristocracy of private governance, I understand that if you know the 
> ropes a bit you may find it easier to pull some strings in that 
> smaller aristocracy than it is to move or influence larger, 
> democratically established governments.

The first thing people noticed about Internet is, that it is 'flat'. It 
has not hierarchy. Internet changed the structure of many corporations 
by the way, made them flatter. It also changed the structure of many 
Governments 'democratic' or not. It changed the structure of everybody's 
relationship and communications. Internet is different.

> For very analogous reasons, a very rich person willing to use bribery 
> might strongly favor the continuation of a corrupt, bribery-based 
> system of governance because it very much helps the rich person to get 
> things done in a quick way.

So you believe that it would be possible to bribe CIRA, to influence 
their decisions instead of demonstrating that something they do it not 
proper and not in line with their mandate?

> I hope it's obvious that I interpret my own experiences in effecting 
> change in non-democratic or private institutions to be due to my 
> temporary admission into that part of the internet aristocracy, 
> combined with the unilateral decision on the part of the private 
> governor to grant me some grace, relief or mercy. 

Yes, it is. But you wrongly assume that involving a "democratic" 
Government will make your experience better. All you can do is inflict 
damage on your opposing "King". But history remembers that each time you 
ally with a stranger things do not get better.

> I don't think you or I will ever succeed in getting such a private 
> governor to do something in this manner that is in any way 
> fundamentally against their interests -- our arguments are limited to 
> what's in the long term best interests of our kingly private governor 
> (or the threat of asserting democratically-derived laws, which is an 
> interjection of democracy into a non-democratic situation).

Here you have hit the nail, I must admit! :)

How do you know what are the interests of all current private Internet 
governors? You apparently assume, that it is all about profit. Or, all 
about domination over mankind. Or, some form of secret conspiracy that 
no doubt is anti-democratic and needs to be prosecuted.

Could you imagine, just for a moment, that because those "Internet 
governors" are so many and the club is open to anyone and the admittance 
costs are very low, to negligible -- that this "internet aristocracy" 
covers pretty much a significant portion of Earth's population? If it is 
so, what is your proposal to create a 'democratic' governance, 
especially involving Governments. Internet Governance has already 
outgrown Governments. It is so since many, many years. Internet is 
different.

> The acid test for democracy or any form of governance is what can be 
> called the "So What?" test. What can a person do if the power 
> exercising governance simply says "so what?" "What are you going to do 
> about it?" 

Right. Your mailing list King, when faced with absurd requests, 
especially such that would impact negatively their operation, or the 
experience of their membership is very likely to respond to your threats 
with "So what?". So what? What if they do so? We need to engage the 
Government to punish them?

Like in the kindergarden, when one child runs crying to the teacher for 
support in their fight with the other one? Or threaten the other child, 
that their father (read: one Government) will beat their father (read: 
another Government).

There is just one task for Governments with relation to Internet and 
human rights. To create adequate environment, to foster competition and 
innovation and provide support for the private initiatives. This is 
cheaper for everybody (because everybody pays the increasing costs of 
Government bureaucracy), does not create unnecessary tension and ensures 
rights of humans are protected.

Many argue, that access to Internet is a human right. It is not. It is a 
privilege. This is especially because access to Internet is not 
restricted and as such everybody has access. But costs are different 
thing. Already there are initiatives to ensure access to Internet for 
those who cannot bear the costs themselves, but this is pretty much the 
same as any other charity effort.

Daniel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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