Re: Internet Governance & "Producers' Cooperatives"

[Bob Allisat <bob@wtv.net>]

I wrote:
>>
>> The use of the "Producers' Cooperative" is legitimate only when dealing
>> with specific issues and limited areas of responsibility. It is perfectly
>> useful in, for example, the limited realm of name services provider
>> discussions, the setting of technical standards or deliberations on
>> smaller issues. The final decision and power of veto must rest with
>> the hundred million citizens increasingly of all nations who actually
>> drive this medium.
>>
>> There is no merit in utilizing the possession of Secondary or Top
>> Level Domain name holders as anything even vaguely resembing a
>> consituent or representative assembly of the Internet at large. "One SLD,
>> one vote" (or "One TLD, one vote") is as unfair a system as "One house
>> one vote". What happens is that those with the most houses/SLDs/TLDs
>> simply dominate the process and all fairness flies out the window.
>>
>> Similarly, alotting control to Industrial/commercial segments breaks down
>> into the same basic injustice on a general level. The same outcome results:
>> "One mega-site/corporation one vote" and the overwheleming majority composed
>> of small stakeholders are relegated to so much background "noise". In my
>> experience the vast majority of Internet commerce is in the form of small
>> business and individual sites. So indeed the netizen is truely the majority
>> stakeholder. And we are effectively frozen out of the process in favour of
>> the alleged big players in any power block structure governance proposals.
>>
>> Further more, it also is unfair to place the plethora of small interests
>> which make up the majority of Internet activity into one subset facing
>> large Internet business or commercial blocks. If, for example, two seats
>> are given to ISP's, two to corporate players, two to technical experts
>> and two to Domain Name registries leaving two places for miscellaneous
>> netizens one has effectively rendered the real-time majority stakeholder
>> netizen into a powerless position. We cannot and, I hope, will not
>> relegate the men and women of the Internet to a bit player "extra"
>> status.
>>
>> "We the people" are the major driving net.force. It is our ISP bills,
>> our small businesses, our credit card transactions, our visits racking
>> up their hit count, our two hundred million pissant Web sites that
>> drives this whole beast that makes their their profits. Let us not
>> forget that.
>>


Einar replied:
>
> Methinks you did not read my message carefuly enough to see that there
> was no such thing proposed as "One TLD or SLD, One Vote" in my
> proposal.  So, I am only writing now to clarify what I wrote as
> compared to what you imply that I wrote.
>
> To restate my proposal (perhaps) more simply than I originally did:
>
> 1.  No direct voting for the members of the Names of the NamesCouncil.
>
> 2.  All TLD and SLD and lower DNS Zone admins are indirectly
>     represented through their own separate trade or other kind of
>     associations, as are the DNS Name Service Administrators, with 25%
>     of the NamesCouncil voting members chosen by each of the four
>     associated groups mentioned here.
>
> 3.  All other voices are to be heard through Fari Hearing Panels whcih
>     must operate in an open public mode, as must the NamesCouncil.
>
> I believe that this arrangement negates all of your fears.
>

 Einar appears to be limiting his comments to a names
 council in the "Producers' Cooperative" model. This
 is perfectly acceptable as long as "all other voices"
 in the Fair Hearing Panels hold the real power and true
 control *not* the many conflicting commercial interests.
 Myself and every  other netizen pay the net dot bills
 and we must call the shots dot com.

 Einar has not herein addressed the stickly problem of
 Global Internet Governance (GIG). Producers' Cooperatives
 should provide "We the people" with technical, industrial
 and commercial input where necessary. However, once again,
 direct control and final word must be placed in the hands
 of the overwhelming majority: the average netizen. Control
 must *not* be entrusted to power blocks however wise,
 experienced or competant.

 Accepting the primacy of the netizen in Global Internet
 Governance the next step is casting about for an effective
 model to organize ourselves by. There, alas, is no more
 roughly successful model around than elected, constitutional,
 representative, parliamentary "western" style democratic
 institutions. If Einar or any other person can offer a
 more effective model please bring it forward for us to
 consider. Otherwise we must adopt and adapt and improve
 upon such a  model for our own net dot government. We must
 move with speed to provde our own Internet government and
 have it in place to take on the reseponsibilities that are
 rapidly advancing as the American and other conventional
 governments pull from the picture. Let us take the challenge
 and, with clear hearts and more or less (!) sound minds
 procede to the task at hand.


 Bob Allisat
 Director, World TeleVirtual Network
 bob@wtv.net - (416) 534-1999 - http://www.wtv.net
 Free Community Network - .FCN free TLD Registry - http://fcn.net