[governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance

Tue Apr 16 01:10:34 EDT 2013

Hi,

- Community boards are used in all sorts of circumstances to enforce local ordinance and policy.  It is true that one of the roles of the government to run the policing function.  and in the best cases, the policing function is under constant review/oversight by citizen review boards.  I never claimed they had not function.  But I do claim that function can and must be equivalent to the other functions.  Governments are not our masters, they are of, by and for the people. We are their masters, and at the very least their equals in the multistakeholder process.

- Actually private corporations are accountable to the stockholders and their customers.    All people who have chosen freely to interact with them at various levels of contractual and consumer relationship with them. I may not be the greatest fan of the accountability feedback loop in most business but there is one (except maybe banks and other money for money's sake types of businesses).  And some businesses are committing themselves to structures such as GNI that add extra public accountability mechanisms.  This is a good thing that will make them more accountable.

- in non commercial organization there is always a board, and advisory committees of some sort and various forms of oversight.  In the Internet context that is the multistakeholder governance processes.


avri

GNI - http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org

On 16 Apr 2013, at 00:16, Guru गुरु wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> On 04/15/2013 07:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I do not see the contradiction in 1. You are assuming that the citizens have only one form of participation. And you are assuming that people only interact in government in one way. Personally I also advocate a multistakeholder approach within a country by those living in that country. Of course that its not the case very often at this point. As for enforcement that happens in many ways, some of which may even be citizen based.
>> 
> Perhaps 'some of enforcement' may be citizen based (request you to give examples). But that may be an exception to the rule that it is the Government which has the duty to enforce law. Do you accept this. citizens enforcing law just like the government is nothing but vigilantism.
> 
> If so, do you accept that Government has a different role from other stakeholders in this important task of enforcing law?
> 
>> On the second point, ultimately the legitimacy of any government rests with the citizen, whether as voter, organizer, advocate, demonstrator or activist. So government only rules to the extent to which those who live in a country allow them to rule. Indeed in case of the worse autocracy the citizen effort to change things is quite huge and sometimes deadly, but as the seasonal, color and other revolutions show, the people have the power when they decide they need to take the power.
>> 
> 
> Nicely said. That finally Government legitimacy is provided by the citizen. In our democracies, including as a voter to unseat governments if needed. Thus there is a special relationship of accountability of the government to the citizen
> 
> Such an accountability, alas, is not available vis-a-vis the private sector or individuals. So how do you see a  corporate or even a technical expert as an  'equal' stakeholder in policy making?
> 
> I have no hesitation in agreeing that Governments can be authoritarian, corrupt, inefficient etc etc etc. However, I am not able to understand how you think that their role in governance (enforcing law being a very important component of this) can be 'equated' to other stakeholders. 
> 
> Your clarifications on my points will help me better understand your view.
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
>> 
>> "Guru गुरु" <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> ~~~
>> avri
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


-------------- 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