Subject: RE: Re[2]: KIS ASS

From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:27:25 -0000

Jay,

May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this
choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between
ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of
messages.
Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we
should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of
different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the
skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest.

The rest is being part of the Net.
The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming
physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national
and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common
network that unites people of different culture and language.

This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human
beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed
at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that
can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive
government interference. Any government interference.

I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that
at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have
to be made.
My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those
decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts.
We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and
resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us.

I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of
the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we
start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let
me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet
governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but
I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules,
enforced by an external authority.

This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I
feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your
message.

You wrote:
> I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you
> attribute 
> to the U.S. Government.  After all, this *is* the same Commerce
> Department 
> that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation.
> Some even 
> suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the
> world, 
> resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide.
> 
> As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in
> this area.
> 
May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at
least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom
industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the
evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from
some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this
tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US
Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom.

It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the
subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry
Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important
in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and
ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was
not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards
deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the
weaker part of the globe. IMHO.

> >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world
> to come up
> > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way
> to enforce 
> >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses
> numerous 
> >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will
> be 
> >difficult.
> 
> I believe this is exactly what they are doing.  And it *is* difficult.
> 
Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other
Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization
outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians.

> >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing
> the press 
> >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that
> in...) and 
> 
> Two years ago, I might have agreed with you.  My experience with 
> this process has convinced me otherwise.  Maybe there are some 
> extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with 
> this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces 
> government to live up to our highest ideals.
> 
> Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one.
> We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution 
> possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise.
> 
I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG
process has been a good one, you may be right.
I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad
in itself, independently of which side they are on.
What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen
Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political
fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net,
ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the
Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the
world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our
Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper.

Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons,
instead of praising the intervention of external powers?

> >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think.  If
> anybody is to 
> >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the
> users, for
> > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any
> government.
> 
> That should be a big topic of debate.  Representation is one of 
> the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas 
> and opinions are welcome.
> 
You are absolutely right.
Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing
you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira
Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him
instead of building something with you?

Roberto