[governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not

[Daniel Kalchev]

On Aug 29, 2011, at 21:29 , Paul Lehto wrote:

> Even for non-commercial internet activity, there needs to be payment for
> internet connectivity (unless the government provides it for free, in
> which case the government's quite involved in the internet in that
> way, then).

It will help your perspective greatly, if you forget the "government" part.

Where Internet is 'free' this is not because of any Government.
Most places that provide "free Internet" are commercial enterprises by the way.

Also, you seem to imagine that Internet is only the connectivity aspect.
I would have expected, as you seem to know a lot about the Domain name Registries, that you would consider their service to be part of Internet. Believe you or not, but these registries provided services to the Internet community, absolutely free of charge for over a decade and if it was not the US-invented payment for domain name registrations and the 'trademark' craze, this would have continued even today.
That payment by the way, was very interesting, because part of it was going to a private corporation, and another part of it was going to the US Government, like some form of worldwide "Internet tax". That was later declared illegal and the price "reduced".. Enlightening, eh?

As you suspect, I can give you countless examples why your vision of what Internet is, is wrong. You talk about laws, but all your arguments are based on … money. Who gets the money. Who gets to regulate the money flow.
Of course, in the public interests.
I have lived enough of my life in a "communist" country and believe it or not, have heard this very argument many, many times. Enough times, I would say.

In order to understand what Internet is, it helps to imagine, even for a moment, that for most people, Internet is not about money.

> 
> To disprove what I say, show me an internet company without lawyers,
> show me the internet with cash-only transactions, show me a part of
> the internet that does not use contracts and does not put customers
> into collections, nor use the governmental court system.

Take my word (I am not going to prove anything): my own company, has operated for well over a decade, in a cash-mostly (that is, only few ever used bank transfers, nobody - credit cards) and did not employ a single lawyer during that time. Of course, from day one, we had contracts with users (note, I didn't even understand the word customers at that time) --- with the sole purpose to declare our obligations to them.
Well, that is no longer possible -- but reasons are far more complex.

By the way, I value your input, as some of the points you share are valuable to explain many participants motives.

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