RE: Internet Governance

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

Steff and all,

Einar Stefferud wrote:

> - snip -
>
> The primary error of your logic is that you equate
> "No Central Control" to mean the same thing as "NO CONTROL AT ALL!"
> The Internet, as is the Economy, is Edge Controlled, and that is
> why they do not work well with central control.

  Very true.

>
>
> And, by the way, the Economy also suffers from having "culture,
> investigation, human relations, cooperation, education" so the
> Internet having them does not distiguish it from an Ecomomy.

  It is PART of the economy, a big part, and becoming bigger.  But
not an economy itself.

>
>
> Likewise the Economy also has "childrens corruption, crime
> organization, people manipulation", so this "distinction" is
> also not present.

  Very true.  This however does not define or distinguish is as and economy in
and of itself.

>
>
> Mr. Bill's big problem is that he is blind to his impact on the
> economy, and since the Economy has no Government or Central Control,
> it is up to other Governments where they do exist to deal with
> monopolists, especially when the monopolists persist in denying the
> reality of the fact that they have succeeded in reaching the "End Game
> of Monopoly" which is known as "Antitrust".

  I think the MR Bill wants all of us to believe that he doesn't know.  I know
him much better than he lets on publicly.  He used to cheat at poker in college
and also bluffed allot.  I think he is now.  He would love to be forced to
split Microsoft up.  In fact he needs to be forced in doing so in order to
reinvent Microsoft into a network company.

>
>
> (Why anyone would relish geting into such an end game is far beyond my
> understanding, unless they have a deep conviction that they really
> should be allowed to run the world.  Were I BillG, I would at this
> point be diligently working to split the company into at least 3
> parts, and spin them off to work their magic by competing with each
> other.  Now that will produce some real involvation, in place of the
> current upgrade churning.

  I see that Mr Bill has you bluffed out as well.  >;)  You'll learn soon enough.

>
>
> But, in the case at hand for the DNS, the NSI monopoly was created by
> the US Government (perhaps inadvertently and without intention) when
> it caused or allowed the TLD namespace to be artificially restricted
> to one single commercial TLD, which then turned into the .com monopoly
> spawned by the market structure failure that stemmed from not having
> enough competing TLD registries to provide any competiton.  So, the US
> Govt is responsible for causing the market structure failure, and it
> seems reasonable that they should now remedy the situation which they
> caused. In short, just open up the root to competing TLD registries.

  I agree.

>
>
> This remedy does not require a new Government of The Internet
> any more than the MS Monopoly requires a New Goverment of The Economy.

  Well this connection escapes me.

>
>
> By the way, it is an interesting exercise for those who want to create
> a new Internet Government, complete with constitution and preisdent
> and supreme court, to also consider how they would do the same for the
> econonomy!

  I see where you are going here, but lets put it this way.  If the Internet
doesn't
need governance than it needs a system of standards that is determined by all
of its constituents and/or users.  THis can be accomplished in several ways
however.

>
>
> So, this is the parallel between Internets and Economies.  Neither of
> them will fare well under centralized control of any Centralized
> Governance, whether it is an Internet Governance or ITU Governance, or
> UN Governance, or Dictator Governance, or "democratic Governance.

  We would prefer as I am sure the majority would that that form of governance be
democratic Governance.

>
>
> Both the Internet and the Economy, which are both "edge Controlled"
> rather then "centrally controlled", function best when they are
> coordinated with confederations of edge located power centers.

  We don't agree with this assertion at all.  As I have already pointed out in
great detail already.

>
>
> Now, if you beleive that the Internet now needs its own centralized
> Government, I suggest that you should also be lobbying for a new
> Central Ecomomy Government.

  Nice try!  No cigar.  This conclusion to your argument is not valid.  And is
not so, because your premise's are not true.

>
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From your message Fri, 29 May 1998 20:24:41 +0200:
> }
> } Einar wrotes:
> }> >
> }> >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.
> }
> }Internet is a market yes, but also:
> }
> }A place for culture, investigation, human relations, cooperation, education
> }...
> }
> }And also for childrens corruption, crime organization, people manipulation ...
> }
> }Please explain how can we aply your economic model to these points?
> }
> }No goberment means the law of the strongest, Mr. Gates will be very happy,
> }anybody else?
> }
> }I agree that we dont need a central control just the opposite to give the
> }control to the people.
> }
> }Best Regards,
> }       Salvador Vidal

 Regards,
Re: Internet Governance & "Producers' Cooperatives"
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com