Re: Internet Governance & "Producers' Cooperatives"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bob and all,

  Glad to get back to some more substative discussion....

Bob Allisat wrote:

>
>
> 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 could support Stef's allowing the Name Server Administrators "Final Vote"
in determining DNS policy if there are some regulations governing that
management that is determined by the Stakeholders and the Internet community
at large.

>
>
>  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.

  I must also agree with Bob here.  As I have pointed out previously the
definitions that Stef provided for "Customer" and "User" are really
incorrect.  In addition in that the vast majority of Customers are indeed
also Users, by his definitions, and in fact, Bob's comments here are
certainly correct.

>
>
>  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.

  Or they can exercise control over themselves collectively.

>
>
>  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.

  I must concur.

>
>
>  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.

  Or this could be accomplished through a referendum vote by the stakeholders
and Internet Users.

>
>
>  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.

  I agree with Bob here.  In fact it is technically possible to do this
virtually now.

>
>
>  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
> *******************************************************
>
> - Huge snip -

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com