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

Thu Jun 20 11:10:28 EDT 2013

Hi Daniel,

From: Daniel Kalchev [mailto:daniel at digsys.bg] 
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:42 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Ian Peter'
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce
Schneier + tinyURL

On 20.06.2013, at 14:46, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

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. 

This is certainly true and I understand that the lack of such experience
definitely precludes the other participants to fully appreciate my concerns.

Let me say that I fully agree with the democracy/representation theory. I
sincerely hope to live and see the day when it is fully implemented (even if
I will have to live thousands of years)

[MG>] yes.

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.

This is the theory. Unfortunately, in almost every real life case, this is
not the case. It is "almost" so, and as they say the devil is in the
details.

[MG>] yes, for sure

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.)

Here lies the problem!

>From the point of view of *any* national government and the individuals
whose democratic will it theoretically represents, Internet is a natural
creation.

If for no other reason, but the fact that it consists not only of those
individuals in a single jurisdiction, but also of the individuals residing
in other jurisdictions and "operating" under wildly different premises and
regulations.

[MG>] Interesting observation. I`m not sure I quite agree but I can see
where you are going with this.

For example, do you believe the Bulgarian Government has any right to
regulate the actions and behaviors of the fellow USA citizens? Or the fellow
China citizens? Because, those citizens too are part of the Internet, not
only Bulgarian citizens. 

[MG>] true, but they do have the right to regulate their own citizens and
collectively they have the right to regulate the collective actions of all
citizens of all countries (again of course in theory) and this would be my
understanding of, for example the UD Human Rights and say the International
Court (at least for those countries which have signed on to it. And I think
it is this kind of approach which we are discussing in this specific context
is it not.

By the same measure, does the Bulgarian Government have any say about the
behavior of the Bulgarian citizens that happen to live say in the US? What
if this contradicts with the requirements the US Government has for that
same Bulgarian citizens while they do reside in the US?

[MG>] as above although (I`m not s a lawyer) the Bulgarian government would
I imagine have some residual rights with respect to it`s overseas citizens
(as for example with respect to taxation) as long as they retain their
citizenship, passport, and the ``privileges`` that go along with that
citizenship. 

We had this argument already in the past and it basically boils down to the
fact that any Government's mandate is geographically (so to speak) defined
and restricted, while Internet is not.

[MG>] see above (and I think this is a very complex issue involving for
example what might be meant by ``geographically defined and restricted``--I
would guess that there were various approaches to defining this depending on
one`s point view, objectives, specific legal definitions etc.etc.

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

This is where we switch from the theory to the practice. Nobody creates and
put's in effect laws, that cannot be implemented (*). So why continue with
the fruitless efforts, that leave a lot of Internet users (real citizens)
frustrated in the process?

[MG>]  As you say this is where things get practical and I would guess one
would need to answer your final question on a case by case, context by
contex, jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.

M

Daniel

(*) We in Bulgaria are special, because most of the "good" laws that we
create, are not and sometimes clearly cannot be implemented.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130620/f2fd32e4/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