[governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not

[JFC Morfin]

At 20:30 28/09/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
>I really don't get this "multi-stakeholder" model and don't see how 
>it can lead to anything but what I describe.

Barry,

there is something we need to accept. The interrnet does not belong 
to everyone: it is everyone.

This is why any strategy, behaviour, thinking which considers it as 
something you can control outside of the others' people accepted 
social forms of governance (administration, justice, police, society, 
army, etc.  etc.) will technically fail at some stage. People do not 
want deregulation they want protection of their life, interests, liberty.

This means that when the US denigrates "governments", they actually 
virtually invade their country.
They may see it as a "liberation" of the country's people, but the 
"liberated" people - having this way got the liberty to purchase US 
goods in US dollars - may not see it that way and retaliate in their 
own different ways. It seems that for a couple of decades the US 
should have understood it.

Now, the US are not the only would be invaders.
Others may also want to politically oppose the US interests in 
illegitimate manners, and the US have an full legitimacy to counter 
them or to prevent their agression.

This is the normal diplomatic process. The problem is that 
globalization has raised the physical war threshold and replaced it 
it by new forms of wars including brain washing, financial crisis, 
cyberwarfare, cultural influence, righte and duty to intervene, etc. 
and the time-space relation has made precautionary conterwars 
something rather new we do not fully understand yet.

We have to accept that we are at war. And that this war is rather new 
because it is global: eveyone is at war with everyone. This war is 
also rather new because the engaged powers are public, private and 
civil (some XIIth century kind of warring) with the economical and 
financial emergence of new kind of sovereignties (Apple, Google, 
Microsoft, etc. in our area). It enlists many mercenaries, 
disembarking the in the meetings (i.e. battles of influence). Etc.

IMHO the solution we have is to keep ourselves outside of their 
global coalitions, actions, battles, etc. and look at our local 
interests, minding our own business rather than the ones of the big 
network leaders, and protecting ourselves from their plundering. This 
is why the VGN notion and management is so important.

They keep saying the internet belongs to every of "us" (us bing the 
"stakeholders"', the net nobility)?
Let make it work as being every of us (the network commoners).

How that? May be can the techies on the list to join the 
http://mycann.org effort to discuss the mycann-plug-in. Be you own 
VGN master or member.
Some said "a client not a consumer".

Why to waste time and money at attending their meetings instead of 
spending this time and money at being fee and self-protected ?

jfc



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140929/7dfad38f/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