[governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL

[michael gurstein]

Daniel,

 

You seem to have a somewhat odd and certainly not universally shared understanding of the nature and role of ``government`` perhaps reflecting your particular historical experience.  

 

In many (most?) jurisdictions ``government`` is seen as being the operational arm of processes of responsible democratic governance and thus at some level and in some form responding to the will of the citizens as articulated through these democratic processes. 

 

So, insofar as citizens have a right to (self)regulate affairs as might affect them and within certain circumscribed jurisdictional boundaries and within certain formalized procedures then of course, they (and their ``government``) have a ``mandate``to do what you are indicating they have no mandate to do i.e. regulate the actions of their fellow citizens including their actions with respect to the Internet.  (The Internet is a product of the actions and behaviours of persons and not a natural creation such as gravity so your example doesn`t fit.)

 

That specific governments are not always acting in this representative manner is of course, the subject of daily headlines but most of the actions of those opposing particular governments (Turkey, Brazil etc.) is not to deny this form of accountability but rather to assert that particular governments and their leaders are not appropriately living up to these processes and values. 

 

Whether citizens through their government should or are able to effectively regulate x or y (including the Internet) is of course another issue.

 

M 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kalchev
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:34 AM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL

 

 

On 20.06.13 01:38, Ian Peter wrote:

Daniel, your basic assumption seems to be that nothing that governments can do can affect the future of the Internet. Here I disagree. I think they have enormous power to break up the Internet, and there are plenty of examples out there already of how governments can restrict open access. Yes, there are Tor and other workarounds in some cases, but for the majority, national firewalls and censorship are effective. 


I have no assumption related to whether "Governments" can affect the future of the Internet. In my opinion, Governments have no mandate to do anything related to Internet, as such -- although they may have mandate to regulate activities that use Internet technology or resources. This is quite an difference in my opinion and probably the core of our "disagreement".

Things might have been different, if Governments in fact built and controlled the Internet -- which is not the case. But Governments are free to build and control their very own Internets: in fact, some do --- thing is, nobody else is interested in participating. It could of course be fixed, by disallowing competition...

As an example, I don't think any Government has any mandate to regulate Earth's gravity. As a consequence, water drops will continue to fall from the sky and fill rivers that will continue to flow (the Internet), despite the fact that in some places artificial structures prevent that free flow (national firewalls?). Governments could however pretend they have mandate to control "national water resources" which comprise of all water flows trough "their" territory -- and insist on regulating anyone who "operates with water".
However, if those who control the flow of water on Earth (God?) decide, that they wish that no single drop of water will fall on the territory of an particular country, there is nothing the government of that country can do about their "mandate to control water" -- except of course to declare God hostile, and who knows, start a war :)
If Governments could alter Earth's gravity as they wish, they could cause rain drops intended for another country to drop on their "own" sold, or the other way around.





As you say,the Internet is based on peer trust. I think the big issue we face is that the trust is now highly questionable to many of us. It's the breach of trust by a dominant stakeholder that concerns me and leads me to believe that the path back to internet freedom may be difficult. 


I do not believe the US Government is your peer.

Your statements strikes me as if you believed the US Government is the sole guardian of the Internet and multistakeholderism.. This is interesting, as by definition you cannot trust any (elected) Government, as on the next election you end up with different set of "governors" with possibly completely different goals and agendas. 




But I appreciate your optimism! 


Thanks for the kind words, but I am not exactly optimist.
If the drink is not to my taste, the glass is always half full (I don't want any more).
If the drink is good, the it is always half empty (needs to be refilled).

But in this particular discussion, I am merely pointing out common sense. 

Daniel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130620/ff93d66c/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