.
Part
II.
THOUGHTS ON THE STATE OF NETWORK AFFAIRS, WITH CONCISE
REMARKS ON A GLOBAL INTERNET CONSTITUTION
"...I offer nothing more than
simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have
no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than
that he [or she] will generously enlarge his
views beyond the present day."
--
Thomas Paine, Common Sense .......
MOVING from general theory to a
specific application, the central problems of democracy
seem contained in the dispute over Internet expansion and
the outcry over "privatization" of our public network by
the leading trade and professional organizations at the
behest of the United States Government.
The core question is
fundamental. Shall our Internet be ruled by laws or by
decrees, by and for the network users themselves or by
and for the network technocrats? The choice is
ours.
Volumes have been written about
the unexpected emergence of the Internet as a medium for
interactions among "anyone, anywhere, anytime." As an
unplanned cultural phenomenon, the Internet's astounding
unpredictability is half the fun and magic behind the
miraculous growth of the new medium. Yet ambiguity
presents difficulties. Without one shared vision of where
we're going on the Internet, what can we do to manage the
social upheaval being produced by Internet
popularity?
Someday, everyone alive could
want a website, so we will need a lot of addresses. The
power to register more "generic top level domain names,"
(like the proposed "username.store
or
"username.firm").
is the power to award turf
for development.
Authorizing additional
categories of Internet domains is akin to declaring a
land rush. Unlike Old West pioneers displacing duly
defensive native inhabitants, the bold voyagers into
cyberspace can settle explored territories manifested
from virgin nothingness by the power of vivid imagination
-- and a willingness to make it so. Empires built from
these new electronic domains may govern our lives in the
new century, as do today's empires. Therefore, we
all qualify as network stakeholders.
A New
Understanding
INTERNET affairs today are in a
state of confusion. Our habit whenever anarchy befell in
the past has been to find a visionary avatar offering
salvation in trade for loyalty. Amid all the turmoil of
Internet growth, which network leaders are
not.
volunteering to be our masters? We are under no
obligation to accept any offer, however generous. We
retain a right to find our own solutions.
Because the Internet emerged as
a free and open "public switched network," the right to
govern the international network of networks is a sacred
public trust.
Administrative control of the
Internet was accorded to the original leadership by a
consensus of the Internet community as the new media
evolved. Their authority was unchallenged until recent
efforts at privatization stirred us to question our
systems of network governance.
And thus we arrive here now with
the matter on the table before us. Let us stop, breathe,
do our homework, and together choose what we want to do.
Instead of management by
hierarchy, business as usual, what if we agree on a new
understanding of network democracy expressed in an
Internet
constitution?
Our baseline reality is that we
need to expand the Internet soon. The urgency is real,
but so long as none of the governance schemes have become
entrenched, the period of debate is not yet closed.
Unwilling to await a genuine consensus, some major
players have already begun to institute an Internet
government [ICANN]
despite growing international protests. Any coup
d'état
can become a fait
accompli.
faster than a cable modem
loads a website if the common people stand idle. Only
public protest to American political leaders may win a
delay.
The urge to grow the Internet is
healthy, but hasty
implementation of any
network expansion proposal could lock us into a
"solution" we may one day regret. Contemplate the fate of
all those "early adopters" who have locked themselves
into dead-end technologies. In the same way, if we
tolerate a precedent of autocratic network management
now, the autocracy may become entrenched. Freedoms lost
can be regained only after anguish and travail. Why be a
house divided against itself when Internet alchemy evokes
a sense of being linked into one global
village?
Despite the mounting market
demand for new domain names, an expansion
moratorium
will give us time to study
more democratic proposals for Internet government, and
then let's vote about what we want.
Risking a
Constitutional Convention
A PUBLIC inquiry is necessary
into our present and future vision of Internet
governance. Before our Internet expands, let's establish
a new social
contract. Because we
still lack the global sense to live responsibly free
without any government, instead of reliance on despots,
We need laws that can't be changed at the whim of a
committee. We need an Internet constitution with a
bill of network rights safeguarding our natural human
rights to access, privacy and security. We need a
constitution balancing our freedom of expression with the
right of parents to protect their children from predatory
content. We need laws based on global sense.
Negotiations may be rigorous as
we debate all the possible solutions, and we need to
allow time for open discourse. This is why a moratorium
is necessary. But if we interact with global sense and
good faith, we can agree with good speed upon a fair deal
for everyone. We can draft for international ratification
a global Internet Constitution that acknowledges and
upholds our public and private rights and
responsibilities as individuals and
organizations.
Why stumble into an abyss?
Let
us take time to meet and talk before we
enact.
An Open Internet Congress was
convened in Washington, D.C. two years ago under the
auspices of the Association for Interactive Media, and
anyone could attend. That gathering was not repeated, but
any new assembly representing the broadest spectrum of
Internet stakeholders would be suited to conduct the
overdue inquiry into network governance.
In addition, once convened and
meeting regularly, the assembly needs to promote and
coordinate international public discourse about our
constitution. Drawing upon diverse voices, the assembly
then need to write a far-sighted document that institutes
"participatory management" of our network.
A related task is developing and
testing a trusty system of electronic voting with
One Person One Vote, perhaps accomplished through some
secure browser form. The big challenge here is preventing
vote fraud or ballot stuffing.
While the precise provisions of
our Internet constitution is a matter best left for any
convention we may convene, if the presumption is not
unseemly, here are my recommendations for consideration.
Parliamentary governments are prone toward instability
whenever confidence falters. Let's draw upon the American
model with a division of powers (legislative,
administrative, judicial) serving the interests of the
industry and networkers alike. We can debate term limits
for elected representatives, but first let's be committed
to open and free elections.
A word of caution. Once any
democratic constitution is offered for ratification by
the Internet community, indeed, by the community of
nations, the able assembly developing the proposal then
must be disbanded and replaced by a fresh Internet
congress elected through a direct democratic process. The
new group must avoid committing the sins of the old group
[e.g., IAHC players attempting to enthrone themselves
through the "gTLD-MoU"
in 1997, and the "interim" ICANN
Board declaring; itself
the "initial" board in 1999]. Never trust a leader
who won't leave office when the job is done. We already
have enough despots trying to rule us.
Private citizens never have a
right to claim power over public affairs without the
consent of the governed. Anyone who tries to gratify
themselves this way deserves to be investigated
for attempted tyranny. Search for motives. The only
reason for opposing open network democracy is to profit
from a lack of freedom.
-o-
IF WE do our research
intelligently, applying the basic critical thinking
skills of deep
media literacy, if we
filter out the propaganda while seeing the reality of our
interactivity, if we are accessing the same universal
light of wisdom within us all, although this may well be
a mighty big "if," doesn't it make sense that we would
evolve a shared vision of network democracy? Through
common agreement on a mature set of rules for fairly
managing the Internet that's affecting all of our lives,
we won't need kings to run our lives any more. We may
become better beings in the bargain. Why not? Why not try
practical idealism for a change? The only thing we
have to lose is our addiction to living in chains.
 .PRIOR
SECTION
|
INDEX
| NEXT
SECTION
|
