Re: Internet Governance & "Producers' Cooperatives"

[Bob Allisat <bob@wtv.net>]

I wrote:
>>
>> 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 commented
>
>In prior versions of this idea, I have also included the concept of a
>Customer+Producer Coop Model, and to some extent I have included the
>voice of customers with inclusion of a Name Server Administrators
>Association that would have a 25% vote in the Names Council.
>
>... I will be happy to revert to my former inclusion of customers in
>the name of the model, and as noted, I have already included their
>representation in my proposal any case.
>

 Including the people who utilize the
 Internet is crucial to the perception
 and actualization of fairness in the
 regulation of Domain Name Services. In
 my opinion Name Server Administrators
 do not represent average people so I
 am heartened by Einar's re-inclusion
 of their involvement. I stand by my
 original position allowing these people
 the controlling and final vote.

 I do not think it is fruitful to enter
 into a discussion of the differance
 between a "user" and a "customer". We
 are citizens all and regardless of our
 spending power will increasingly rely
 on the Net for all of our everyday needs
 from banking and shopping to love letters.
 I will not differentiate "user" from "non-
 user" or "consumer". We will *all* depend
 on this medium for virtually all of our
 non-intimate communications and commerce
 in the fast on-rushing future. Therefore
 we all must have a say in it's unfoldment
 and control over our lives therein.

 Persons who, while being average netizens
 in many ways but who also own or control
 major commercial Internet interests are
 not a real problem to deal with. They must
 simply declare themselves to be in conflict
 of interest during certain deliberations
 and be excluded from representing everyone
 unless they divest and/or clearly define
 their Net related interests. This is a
 standard practice of governments worldwide
 and a nice way to curtail or limit corruption,
 insider trading and the like. Their option
 should these citizens be unwilling to make
 the disclosures or divestments necessary for
 unbiassed administration is to serve on Einar's
 "Customer+Producers Cooperative Model" advisory
 boards. Boards (I hasten to add) that must,
 nevertheless and regardless, be controlled by
 regular, elected representatives of normal
 citizens.

 Make no mistake: I am clearly and resolutely
 calling for the creation of Internet government.
 But let me evolve my point if you may. Previously
 I wrote:
>>
>> 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 competent.
>>
>> 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 provide our own Internet government and
>> have it in place to take on the responsibilities 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
>> proceed to the task at hand.
>>


Einar replies:
>
>I do not believe what we need is a new Government Of The Internet!
>
>Lets draw a parallel between the Global Internet and the Global
>Economy, both of which nobody can or should "own" in the sense of
>centrally controlling "it" as though it is some kind of monolithic
>centrally controllable thing.
>
>(edit)
>
>All historical instances of centrally controlled economies have been
>known to fail, and now every government that ever "owned" an economy
>has come to wish it did not own one.  In short, economies work much
>better when not centrally controlled.  So do Internets.
>
>My thesis is the the Internet is more like an economy than an
>enterprise, and so it is not a good idea to form up a central control
>mechanism for it, regardless of how you might scheme to rig
>representation to arrive at a "fair" arrangement to share power at the
>center among all the people who have an interest in one or another
>part of the Internet.
>
>The Internet only works when its users are free to make their own
>choices, and to cooperate with those the they find it useful to
>cooperate with.  In short, we don't need singular central control to
>make us cooperate.  We do it better on our own with free and open
>markets, which only work well when they are indeed free and open.


 With respect I would like to cut to the quick
 of Einar's excellent position. He argues the
 Internet is a market which must be free. And
 our decisions, as people in a marketplace, must
 be free as well and will inevitably determine
 what is best for us humanity. This is true as
 long as we maintain what some call "a level
 playing field". Howver Einar's proposal is in
 my humble opinion weakened if not defeated
 entirely by previously stating this regulation
 should be by Customer+Producer Coops.

 What occurs when we install these Customer+Producer
 Coop is the creation of various cartels which
 control significant resources be they the Domain
 Name Space, IP addresses, Technical protocols and
 general regulations. As we all fully realize by now
 these resources are not without value. Indeed they
 are worth incalculable fortunes not to mention
 effecting and affecting every human being in our
 future. While I certainly trust various Customer
 & Producer Coops to advise us as to the various
 technical issues and interests of their specific
 constituents I most certainly do not trust these
 persons to rule in the interests of the general
 good since, by definition, they have specific
 interests which often conflict with those of
 average folks.

 Customer & Producer Coops are magnificent instruments
 of advisement on policy formulation. They are dreadful
 forms of general governance whioch require oversight,
 more or less unbiassed decision making and a wider
 more inclusive, popular perspective. This leads me
 to the inevitable conclusion that over-riding and
 controlling the many potential Customer & Producer
 Coops the internet will generate must be a structure
 defined as government made up of people who are
 willing either to declare or divest their specific
 interests and act for *everyone*. And the only way
 I know of in our times is through a democratic,
 elected, representative form of government.

 The Internet government will be differant in
 many radical ways. It may meet in person only
 once a years or once a decade. It may exist only
 virtually and allow vast numbers of people to
 directly participate. But exist Internet government
 must and "We the people" must begin founding this
 government *NOW* and ensure we have firm control
 over the emmerging Customer & Producer Coops.

 It is our right and our obligation as citizens
 to determine how our resources are allocated and
 regulated. Our taxes created much of the original
 infrastructures and opportunities. Our money makes
 the profits that allow corporate investments. Our
 eyes and our hands and our ideas and our minds
 100 million strong are what propell this medium.
 It is time we took a rightful position as citizens
 and assumed control over our collective destiny.
 There is only one legitimate party that can determine
 "a level playing field". And that is everyone.

 Thank you for your patience. I look forward to all
 people and their involvement in what promises to be
 a very exciting next few months. For as it is the
 goal of some to create effective Customer & Producer
 Coops it is my goal and that of many others I dare
 say to even more rapidly participate in the foundation
 of an elected, representative, democratic Internet
 Government. Where this will all lead no-one knows but
 of one thing we can be sure: if we are all dedicated
 to the pursuance of the general good we will find a
 way to work together. Peace.

 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

*******************************************************
 PS for those of you reading only the gTLD-MoU mailing
 list Einar's original post is included below. Somehow
 the return address to this mailing list was clipped and
 Mr. Stefferud's <Stef@nma.com> article was not sent to
 this list. Here follows the full unedited article - BA
*******************************************************

>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Date:         Wed, 27 May 1998 16:27:12 -0700
>Reply-To: Stef@nma.com
>Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy@internic.net>
>From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
>Subject:      Re: Internet Governance & "Producers' Cooperatives"
>X-To:         ietf@ietf.org, tld-discuss@gtld-mou.org
>To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>
>Hello Bob Allisat <bob@wtv.net>...
>
>I have chopped out our prior repeated text to focus on your latest
>comments.
>
>>From your message Wed, 27 May 1998 06:25:04 -0400 (EDT):
>}
>[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...[SNIP]...
>}
>} 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.
>}
>
>In prior versions of this idea, I have also included the concept of a
>Customer+Producer Coop Model, and to some extent I have included the
>voice of customers with inclusion of a Name Server Administrators
>Association that would have a 25% vote in the Names Council.
>
>So, I will be happy to revert to my former inclusion of customers in
>the name of the model, and as noted, I have already included their
>representation in my proposal any case.
>
>But, before we go whole hog for giving 100% of control to the "users",
>I want to offer a bit of interesting analysis that I did long ago
>(pre-ARPANET./Internet) when I was consulting for Universities on how
>to manage shared computer resources among many competing departments.
>I will place this analysis last in this message to keep you sense of
>the discussion going as you set it up.
>
>}
>} 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 competent.
>}
>
>Yes, I agree that I was and am primarily focusing on the DNS Mess.
>This does not mean the similar principles cannot apply to development
>of the over-all global Internet Governance situation, though a simple
>mapping of any concept from one application to another is always
>dangerous, and must be done with great care.
>
>}
>} 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 provide our own Internet government and
>} have it in place to take on the responsibilities 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
>} proceed to the task at hand.
>}
>
>I do not believe what we need is a new Government Of The Internet!
>
>Lets draw a parallel between the Global Internet and the Global
>Economy, both of which nobody can or should "own" in the sense of
>centrally controlling "it" as though it is some kind of monolithic
>centrally controllable thing.
>
>First, I note that it was in this 20th century that the human masses
>of the world finally got it straight that "economies" are not things
>that are improved with central control by governments of any kind, be
>they dictatorial, representative parliaments, or representational
>republics, or fully open democracies with direct citizen voting on
>decisions.  It only took the killing of many millions of people, and
>two world wars and a cold war to come to our collective global senses.
>
>Democratic government is good for many things, but not for controlling
>the Global or even National Economies, or for controlling the Global
>Internet or for controlling National or Regional Internets.  Even the
>International Monetary standard is no longer in the control of any
>central body.  Instead, it is in the hands of thousands of traders
>worldwide who are not centrally controlled, but who determine the
>values all all currencies relative to each other through continuous
>international open market currency trading.
>
>As soon as the total community consists of a number of parties
>conducting bilateral or multilateral exchanges of one kind or another,
>one man, one vote representative central governing bodies cease to be
>useful, while open free markets become extremely powerful decision
>forums where customers vote with their wallets.  The danger is not in
>making them too free, but in not making them free enough.
>
>In short, any government must be formed to have central control, which
>will be enforced, with force, of course, because dissent cannot be
>tolerated by central controllers.  Someone has to become a loser in
>this situation, and that is what drives us into zero-sum gaming.  The
>name of the game quickly becomes one of lobbying the central
>controlling body to favor you over your competitor by use of market
>interference, in the name of the "public interest".
>
>So, what we need is to enable customers to do their voting in open
>free markets, which is exactly what has failed at this point in the
>DNS Mess.  The core problem with DNS right now is that there is a
>market structure failure in the fact that the ROOT is closed to new
>TLDs, and this has given rise to the NSI TLD monopoly which was
>created by the US Government, and this market structure failure may
>now be maintained by the US Government by applying regulation actions
>against NSI, but which will then also apply to all other parties and
>DNS Service Providers.
>
>The answer, in my book, is to open the root and let the market do its
>job of providing natural open competition with lots of additional
>TLDs.  The answer is not in now setting up elaborate voting system to
>control the regulation of a monopolistic kind of DNS.  This only
>perpetuates the whole market structure failure, and serves to
>introduce central control governance structures where none are really
>needed.  Once we start down the regulation path, in the cause of the
>public good, it is very hard to turn back to free and open markets.
>
>All historical instances of centrally controlled economies have been
>known to fail, and now every government that ever "owned" an economy
>has come to wish it did not own one.  In short, economies work much
>better when not centrally controlled.  So do Internets.
>
>My thesis is the the Internet is more like an economy than an
>enterprise, and so it is not a good idea to form up a central control
>mechanism for it, regardless of how you might scheme to rig
>representation to arrive at a "fair" arrangement to share power at the
>center among all the people who have an interest in one or another
>part of the Internet.
>
>The Internet only works when its users are free to make their own
>choices, and to cooperate with those the they find it useful to
>cooperate with.  In short, we don't need singular central control to
>make us cooperate.  We do it better on our own with free and open
>markets, which only work well when they are indeed free and open.
>
>}
>} Bob Allisat
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Now for my analysis of the distinction between USERS and CUSTOMERS:
>
>USERS use what they are given to use by their employers, and their
>employers decide what to buy and pay for so they can use it.
>
>CUSTOMERS decide for themselves what to buy and use for themselves, or
>for others to use.
>
>The key difference then between them is that one has a budget and has
>spending authority under that budget, and the other does not.
>
>The result is that one of them makes value judgements about what
>things are worth, and the other does not.
>
>So, guess which is which;-)...
>
>Right!  The customer makes value judgements about what purchases are
>worth, and USERS do not.  In this model then, the USER looks like an
>infinite sink for resources -- A person that will use all of whatever
>they are given and ask for more, whether it is used to produce value
>or not.
>
>The sense of this arose in a very dramatic instance when the first
>small commercial timesharing startup (Allan Babcock Computing in Los
>Angeles) rejoiced upon receiving their first purchase orders for
>service, set up the accounts, and watched the users run up bills that
>exceeded the Purchase Order limits.  They then gleefully sent out
>bills for all the services consumed by the users, where-upon the
>customer refused to pay for the excess use.  Thus, the customer/user
>distinction dawned on Jim Babcock in a great flash of insight:
>
>                The USER is not a CUSTOMER!
>
>Now, I have consulted with many Universities and Companies, Harvard
>being the most recent University and Carnegie Mellon and the
>University of Wisconsin being among the first, where this lesson was
>critically important, and is just as relevant here.
>
>The situation is that you do not want to ever mix together, a board
>with half the votes belonging to USERS and half belonging to CUSTOMERS
>and PRODUCERS.
>
>The reason for this is very simple: There is no way to ever resolve
>differences of opinion when half of the votes are held by people who
>make value judgements and the other half are held by people who do not
>make value judgements.
>
>At one point in the mid 1960's, Carnegie Mellon University set up a
>Computer Advisory Board with equal representation between USERS and
>Deans and Dept heads.  As reported by the Provost, the committee could
>never make a decision.
>
>So, I respectfully suggest that this very same situation is now
>plaguing the DNS Mess, in that the raging arguments are really between
>people who are making real value judgements and people who are not.
>
>There is no way to find consensus between these two kinds of people,
>no matter how equitably you provide voting representation.
>
>The clinch my argument here, just consider how you would organize
>governance for the Global Economy to have a fair representation by
>shares of the vote among individual people who have an interest in the
>economy.
>
>I believe that the great mass of people in the world have already
>voted to prefer representation through open and free markets, rather
>than to representationally vote into power some central policy body to
>make decisions for them about things like what names they can use, and
>what products they can produce and sell and buy, and what kinds of
>contracts must be used in this commerce.
>
>So, this is the real crux issue that we are facing.
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>--
>DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
>To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"