[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

[Roland Perry]

In message <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C at acm.org>, at 21:25:41 
on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>I tend to think of the Internet as an emergent, and emerging, reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software, and human intentionality
>brought together by a common set of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned by the stakeholders.

So not in fact dissimilar in concept to something like "international 
travel", which is also a great enabler and even regarded by some as a 
"right" (with which may come some responsibilities).

The problem is, governing "international travel" requires attention to 
be paid to individual aspects of it (in different ways and to different 
extents). So there's policies surrounding immigration, visas and 
passports; public health issues to do with vaccinations and pest 
control, certification of airports, planes and pilots, and even mundane 
stuff like the size of baggage allowances, what happens about 
lost/damaged bags, and getting a refund if the airline delays you.

Each of these (like each of the aspects of "the Internet" you list 
above) has to be discussed on its own merits, and there's often little 
overlap (eg between the mandatory training a pilot gets and how easy it 
is to get a visa). And governments have, over the years, found many 
reason to "control" numerous of the aspects I listed above. Often 
because of pressure from the public, rather than simply because they 
like wielding the power for its own sake.

I think we should apply this approach to the Internet, and look at 
whether "Government control" is appropriate for each part separately, 
because it's not possible to make a sole "yes/no" decision about 
control, a decision that that would apply to everything to do with the 
Internet.

Just think of the outcry if governments declared that privacy law no 
longer applied to the Internet, and that anyone (including themselves) 
could freely snoop on what everyone else was doing.

>I beleive  "no government interference" is an inaccurate representation of what I wish for.  I wish for "no government control,"

Fair enough, I'm happy to go with your terminology.

[In another posting to the list yesterday, there seemed to be a 
suggestion that someone (presumably government) should exercise some 
control over Google's network deployment in Kansas. I mention this 
merely to highlight that different people have different views about 
many things, especially statutory "universal service obligations".]

> I also wish for government participation as equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance.

Yes, participation is essential.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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