Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance • Hacker News Board

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#31

Post by wmf » Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 10:23 PM UTC

noglorp wrote: post #26

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

Well, the internet is currently really governed by the ICANN, a private corporation.

In some sense ICANN is just a front for the US Department of Commerce with a little VeriSign regulatory capture mixed in.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#32

Post by gwright » Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 11:04 PM UTC

zcid wrote: post #29

noglorp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the internet is currently really governed by the ICANN, a private corporation.

ICANN is easily manipulated and/or a shill. As has been shown very recently with the domain confiscations, ICANN cannot be trusted. We need an organization that is similar to ICANN but totally transparent and directly accountable to the public without being even remotely connected to any government. I have no idea how to implement such a body, but hopefully, someone more clever than myself will discover a way.

There is an inherent conflict with the idea that global top level domains (GTLDs) can be effectively managed without a matching global legal jurisdiction, which of course doesn't exist and won't exist anytime soon.

Using country code domains exclusively would have aligned the domain namespace with real-world legal jurisdictions and simplified or at least 'localized' these sorts of disputes.

In this alternate world you could still have domain mismanagement but it would exist in a scope that could be addressed within existing legal and political boundaries.

The existing situation with GTLDs, ICANN, and conflicting legal jurisdictions is a gordian knot.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#33

Post by dasil003 » Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 11:09 PM UTC

presidentender wrote: post #30

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

You mention that governments are accountable to the people, probably because the people can vote. I don't see why a vote with a dollar is inferior to a vote on a ballot with respect to accountability.

The concentration of wealth is the reason.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#34

Post by andre » Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 2:21 AM UTC

Neither are big corporations, like Google.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#35

Post by stretchwithme » Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 4:14 AM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

I don't think rules made by coercive government and rules made by industry are the only two possible choices.

If people voluntarily join organizations such as a community that has rules but that cannot be arbitrarily changed without consent and where individuals can leave, even taking their real estate out of the agreement, such an arrangement could still adopt all kinds of standards. This would not a coercive arrangement, but one that people voluntarily join to get the benefits of belonging.

One rule such a community might have could be that all members agree to only buy and sell food that meets certain standards. You would likely have many communities adopting different standards, many of which would likely be BETTER than one ALREADY watered down to satisfy industry.

With such arrangements, it would be possible for people to promote and enjoy standards of their choosing, without having the never-ending struggle over what those standards should be.

Why is it that we all must live be the same rules when many can live side by side? We seem to be ok with other nations choosing their own standards, but not our own countrymen. No, they must live lives designed by committee.

A voluntary rules making community could actually go much further than government can in making rules. This is not a problem when people can vote with their feet and simply end their membership when the rules get to be too much. Try doing that with government.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#36

Post by wtallis » Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 4:27 AM UTC

stretchwithme wrote: post #35

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

I don't think rules made by coercive government and rules made by industry are the only two possible choices. If people voluntarily join organizations such as a community that has rules but that cannot be arbitrarily changed without consent and where individuals can leave, even taking their real estate out of the agreement, such an arrangement could still adopt all kinds of standards. This would not a coercive arrang…

What would such a group look like? I'd really like to know how you would go about starting such a group to ensure net neutrality, but even your food example seems far-fetched: How would you coerce manufacturers to give you enough detail about the contents of their products and the production methods? It seems that any boycott-based group with standards significantly higher than the status quo would starve before it could get enough economic power to influence the mega-corporations they are trying to regulate.

It's an idea I really wish could work, but it commits the #1 libertarian fallacy of assuming that markets are free enough to be called capitalist.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#37

Post by wtallis » Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 4:48 AM UTC

presidentender wrote: post #30

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

You mention that governments are accountable to the people, probably because the people can vote. I don't see why a vote with a dollar is inferior to a vote on a ballot with respect to accountability.

In many cases, you have more choice for your politicians than for the businesses you deal with. For example, in they US you pretty much never have more than two choices for ISP, and since they are subject to almost identical market pressures, they usually end up being more similar than the two main political parties are in their treatment of big business.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#38

Post by pjscott » Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 4:55 AM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #25

Maybe I'm in the minority here but I'd rather governments have control here. At least I have a vote and rights in my government. I'm not a Google shareholder so Google, not so much.

I would prefer to keep control as decentralized as possible. To that end, I support sending loads of corporations to the internet governance meeting, as well as universities, non-profit groups, and random dudes with too much time on their hands.

It's fine for them to discuss things like improving rural internet access. That's legitimate. But if they get up to any authoritarian shenanigans, I want those discussions to get bogged down in endless arguments.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#39

Post by stretchwithme » Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 6:37 AM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #36

stretchwithme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think rules made by coercive government and rules made by industry are the only two possible choices. If people voluntarily join organizations such as a community that has rules but that cannot be arbitrarily changed without consent and where individuals can leave, even taking their real estate out of the agreement, such an arrangement could still adopt all kinds of standards. This would not a coercive arrang…

What would such a group look like? I'd really like to know how you would go about starting such a group to ensure net neutrality, but even your food example seems far-fetched: How would you coerce manufacturers to give you enough detail about the contents of their products and the production methods? It seems that any boycott-based group with standards significantly higher than the status quo would starve before it c…

Any such group is simply a niche market and one that would be more clearly defined and quantified than most, assuming its ever allowed to exist at all. All kinds of companies target niches all the time.

You say this idea assumes markets are free enough to be called capitalist? How does it do that exactly?

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#40

Post by stretchwithme » Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 6:44 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #33

presidentender wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mention that governments are accountable to the people, probably because the people can vote. I don't see why a vote with a dollar is inferior to a vote on a ballot with respect to accountability.

The concentration of wealth is the reason.

And how does that negate people's ability to choose the products they will buy or keep companies from catering to specific portions of the market and thus caring very much how people vote with their dollars?