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

[Paul Lehto]

Daniel,

Let's cut to the chase, then.  You've ignored my most important point
that the *only* source of legitimate governance is that based on the
consent of the governed via democracy.  You cite various reasons for
you to prefer non-democratic governance that all sound in the area of
"pragmatism." I had previously given an example of the pragmatic
reasons a bribery-practicing industrialist (or whoever) would give for
supporting a bribery-based political system, but such pragmatic
reasons, whenever they are offered, are morally and politically empty
of justification and legitimacy. The same can be said for any
autocratic type of governance, including but not limited to that of
governance by CEO or Board of Directors:  It may "make the trains run
on time" as Mussolini is mistakenly believed to have always done, but
it still doesn't provide any political legitimacy.

Cutting to the chase, then:

1. Where do you get your political legitimacy for your non-democratic
forms of governance?  Do you deny that non-democratic forms of
governance are illegitimate when the concern fundamental questions of
public policy on the internet?  (We are not concerned so much here
about true freedom to contract between equals, but the ability of
contractual parties to get together, like say Verizon and google, and
agree to terms that profoundly affect OTHERS rights, others who have
never signed nor negotiated any contract, even presuming such
negotiation could be fair and meaningful.)

2. Do  you dislike democracy for policy or political reasons, or do
you (which may be the same thing) just want to keep democracy "in its
place" and out of the internet as much as you can?

Keep in mind (and it doesn't appear you deny this) there is always
governance, the only question is what form the governance will take:
contracts by the strong providers of services with consumers with
little or no bargaining power (all enforced in governmental courts),
or democratic legislatures defining the rules for fair play on the
internet in an exercise of their legitimate and
On 8/1/11, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
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