[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

[Guru गुरु]

On 04/15/2013 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> I think I answered it several times in several ways.
>
> Within their respective countries they, whether North Korea, 
> Azerbaijan or Sweden, get to enforce laws to the extent that citizens 
> allow on those within their physical territory.
>

Avri,

1. From your line above, I suppose you accept that other stakeholders in 
each of these (and other) countries will not have a role in enforcing 
law within their physical territory, which the Governments have.

If you do accept this, then your wish that  "government participation as 
equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance" contradicts the 
above, in the context of law enforcement within their physical 
territory. Will you accept that your wish is meaningless to the extent 
of this contradiction.


2. I could not understand what you mean by "to the extent that citizens 
allow", do you mean that the citizens can refuse enforcement of law by 
the Government. Would you extend such a privilege to decide what laws to 
follow and what not to follow to areas other than IG?

I request your clarifications.

Guru
ps  - On the issue of law enforcement beyond territorial borders,  I 
hope to seek clarification separately


> "Guru गुरु" <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>
>     On 04/15/2013 06:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>         On 14 Apr 2013, at 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>             But here, on the IGC list, what I'm attempting to do (for
>             the sake of avoiding any misunderstanding) is discovering
>             what the various correspondents understand to be "the
>             Internet", upon which they wish "no government
>             interference". I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you
>             could answer it also. 
>
>         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. I beleive "no government interference" is an
>         inaccurate representation of what I wish for. I wish for "no
>         government control," I also wish for government participation
>         as equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance. I am
>         sure that would be considered government interference by some.
>         And would be considered "no government interference" by
>         others. avri 
>
>     Avri
>
>     Do you think government needs to enforce law. would such enforcement
>     require 'control'? (I think andrea glorioso asked this question in two
>     emails pointedly but i think without response)
>
>     Guru
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~
> avri 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130415/e484be3c/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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