[governance] SOPA or no SOPA

[McTim]

On 12/15/11, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>>
>> But "we" are not the Governments. We are the people, who have elected
>> those Governments and entitled them to care for us.  [snip]
>>
>> I for one, would prefer to see situation, where the Governments pilot the
>> plane that carries the Corporations.
>>
>> The point go "common sense" is that it is.. common. That is, everyone
>> understands it. Just like respect.
>>
>
> Now I understand your perspective better, and I agree with it. It strikes
> me as a democratic perspective at heart.
>
> The plane of democracy has been hijacked, and all I'm saying is don't blame
> the flight patterns on Democracy when the hijackers control the plane of
> Democracy. The hijackers are special interests that don't consider the
> common interest or common sense, as you express it.
>
> The special interest is a fatal flaw or serious challenge to achieving
> common sense.  At the very heart of the idea of gathering "stakeholders" is
> the notion of a stake - an interest of some kind in the process.  By
> gathering only the stakeholders, the only people at the table, by and
> large, are those with a special interest of some kind in the outcome,
> sometimes with token "public interest" representatives.   But, by gathering
> only or primarily those with a "stake" in the outcome, one is tending
> strongly only to gather those with special interests in the outcome.
>

In the traditional IG processes that have served us well for many
decades the "special interest has been overwhelmingly the development
of the network.


> The writers and thinkers I admire all identify *disinterestedness* as a
> critical factor for good government and good policy.  *But a truly
> disinterested person doesn't really have a "stake" in the outcome,* in the
> usual ways we understand what a "stake" is.
>
> *By gathering only those with a special interest stake in the outcome,
> internet governance by stakeholder processes works to nearly guarantee, for
> structural reasons, that the common interest or common sense you talk about
> is NOT achieved as an outcome. *

There is far less rent-seeking in IG processes than in our current
governmental processes.


The one area of exception appears to be
> technical questions where often there is a single right or best answer.

The one area where I disagree with Daniel is that there is usually NOT
a clear single "best" answer in Internet technical policy making.

In
> those areas, a stakeholder process might work and can be "trusted" not to
> make special interest value choices along the way.  Outside technical
> areas, where value choices must be made, the stakeholder structure will
> help strongly to defeat common sense every single time, because all or
> nearly all of the players are there for themselves,  and not to vindicate
> the public interest or the common person.

If this is the case, then it is a miracle that the Internet has gotten
to the point it has.  I generally don't believe in miracles.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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