[governance] Re: The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private"

[Paul Lehto]

On 7/18/11, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>
>
> On 18.07.11 18:24, Paul Lehto wrote:
>>
>> The main difference is that
>> Constitutions protect us against governmental action of this kind by
>> giving us a cause of action for interfering with free speech, but with
>> corporate action against free speech we do not have a cause of action
>> under the Constitution because they are "private" parties.
>
> Different countries have different constitutions. Internet is global and
> is the same for everyone.
>
> Which constitution should everyone on Earth adopt?

Daniel Kalchev asks a series of questions like the one above, for
which no answer is presently agreed to, and few or none of the
potential answers are easy or problem-free.  In part for that reason,
it's hard to say via email whether the questions are sincere or
sarcastic:

Obviously, we are here to talk about internet governance globally, and
the need therefore, and it seems we all recognize that there is little
or no global internet governance in a democratic sense of
"governance".  But if "governance" is considered broader than
"govern-ment" then we definitely do have non-democratic entities
exercising governance: mostly corporations.  It doesn't seem a single
one of them is interested in the collective input of the various
experts on our list here, but if they are many of us would love to
hear of that.   A global corporate governance exists in one format
with ICANN, and in another form exists or comes to exist to the extent
one or more corporations owning key internet assets agree (or only one
"agrees" if that one has an effective monopoly) in which case we have
a form of "governance" in practice, via private governors.

Governments globally may or may not be able to get it together in
terms of a reasonable global framework for internet freedom,
especially against the ideological opposition that faces combined with
the business-interest opposition.  But that does not mean that we
don't have internet governance, it's just mainly corporate governance.
 And for them, public policy is irrelevant except to the extent it
happens to harmonize with corporate interests, and except to the
extent that mandatory laws force the corporations to do other than
they wish.  But for those two things, corporations are obliged by law
to be single track minds for profit.  In fact, if they forgo profit in
favor of public service they can be sued by their own shareholders in
a derivative lawsuit for 'wasting' corporate assets.  So we are
unlikely to see any "public policy" that's friendly to the public -
except by coincidence, such as when business interests just happen to
align with public interests.
>
> Setting up prices is considered regulation in many countries.

Not when the government directly runs a monopoly such as the US Postal
Service. Then setting up prices is a business decision by the
legislature or administrative agencies, but one made with public
policy in mind, as required.

>> By the same taken, a reasonable global governance system for the
>> internet could easily provide, if it elected to, that the interest in
>> connecting the globe as a whole was of sufficient weight that
>> "postage" costs for email on the internet should be the same no matter
>> whether the email is domestic or going to Kenya.
>
> You suggest global regulation of Internet access costs across Earth?
> With all countries agreeing on the one true price?

I'm not sure if you are a native English speaker, but I am suggesting
that reasonable people could well support a global "one price"
initiative, because once one's "home country" for INTERNET PURPOSES is
considered to be the globe, then just as postal services provide the
same price domestically within their country, the "country" for
internet purposes is now the globe, and there would naturally  be a
desire (among some at least) to do the same thing for the globe that
domestic postal services do for their home countries.

>> Competition
>> may lower prices (eventually) but competition will never create a
>> e-postal service that serves everyone equally.
>
> It has. It's called the Internet. Used by billions of people worldwide
> for decades.

I'm afraid you're not understanding, or else inappropriately
sarcastic.  The Internet (think: "Digital Divide") does not presently
serve everyone on  the globe that would like access.  Furthermore,
even more importantly, it does not do so even among those it currently
serves at equal prices or approximately equal prices, which is the
specific subject being discussed here.

>> That requires government.
>
> Which one?

A form of international law, probably ratified by governments via a
treaty process, or developed via court and similar processes by
applying existing human rights laws in the relatively new context.


>>    (Or, an extremely rare philanthropic visionary running a
>> monopolistic corporation world-wide, which is unlikely to say the
>> least, and subject to change upon that death of that visionary)
>>
> Or a few million individuals, and growing, as it happened to be with the
> today's Internet. Many have already passed away, new were born for the
> lifespan of the Internet and more are on the way.

If you believe that a few million people, simply by virtue of
participating in a process such as using the internet, somehow
guarantees the perpetuation of conditions of freedom of expression,
you have forgotten too much history.   The periods of freedom in
history are relatively brief, and they don't happen accidentally.

Basically an entity called government or the state is created and
tasked with creating the infrastructure, legally and otherwise, for
free expression and commerce, and then (most importantly) that
government is then tied down and obliged to serve the people, both by
duty and by the right of removal held by voters.

I hope no one confuses the actions of business interests that just
happen to satisfy some human needs (but only because they're profit
interests overlap with that satisfaction) with the much broader human
needs in general.  Human flowering and expression involves acts of
"faith" -- faith in free expression means allowing dissent that one
violently disagrees with.  Without dissent, there is no evidence of
freedom's existence.

Corporations will never tolerate those who would oppose the
corporation (except if this opposition happens to be in the long term
profitability interest of the corporation).  Corporations will never
have faith in the freedom of dissent -- in any robust way.  Sure, they
encourage "creative" "out of the box" thinking that ultimately
increases the profitability of the company -- but never thinking like
"this corporation should not do business at all" and the like.

Finally, the point of the postal service discussion was only to put
some other posters here on a plane of equality -- to say that even if
many may oppose a policy of equally priced internet access as
something to shoot for, it is not a crazy goal, even if the price of
affording internet access to some areas of the world is much higher
than others, because this is what postal services around the world do.
 Because I agree the internet IS kind of like the e-postal service,
that is exactly why it is not unreasonable to pursue such a equality
of price policy for emails as a future aspirational goal.    The fact
that economics argues against it is at best only marginally relevant,
because economics argues against rural postal services worldwide, yet
they've seen fit to offer equal pricing within their jurisdictions for
centuries.

-- 
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