http://funredes.org/mistica

MISTICA: A critical view of Internet Society

From: Daniel Pimienta ([email protected])
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 09:37:43 AST

>To: <[email protected]>
>From: cisler <[email protected]>
>
>This is an interesting critique of the Internet Society, and it relates to
>the place of public, non-profit networks.
>
>Steve Cisler
>
>----------
>From: Patrice Riemens <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:21:46 +0200 (CEST)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: ISOC's On The Internet Global Policy Issue (review/rant ;-)
>
>Hi Steve, I wrote this review for the SONM (no comment came ever forth...)
>I appreciate you take a less strident approach to the problem, but then, in
>some ways, you're much more 'established' than I am, and both viewpoints
>(radical & moderate) are necessary for things to advance...
>cheers, patrice
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>'On The Internet' (The Internet Society Journal) Spring/Summer 2000:
>The Global Policy Issue: A discussion of international governance,
>security, economics, content, and conflict resolution.
>
>
>The ISOC has a problem, and it is a big one. It does not know what it
>stands for. It does especially not know for whom it works, and hence whom
>it is representing. Constituency identification is the issue ISOC seems to
>have strenuously ditched, whether or not on purpose. ISOC-NL, its Dutch
>branch almost caricaturally illustrates where this attitude must lead to:
>wholesale and uncritical embrace of the corporate approach to the
>Internet. A network is a community of consumers, what else? (oh yes, *we*
>own it!)
>
>In its special issue on 'global policy', the ISOC takes a more elevated,
>'public good' approach. It stumbles however almost immediately by
>upholding the by now fully outdated 'government-(vs)-private sector'
>dichotomy. In doing so, it bands together parties whose interests are
>often woefully divergent within, but just as often remarkably convergent
>across that wholly artificial divide. Civil Society is for sure a
>very foreign concept to the ISOC, and this leads to a representation of
>'the people' as being best articulated by, or at least within the terms of
>reference of, 'industry' (itself, of course, entirely undiferentiated).
>Such a description of the 'non-governement sector' gets you a very limited
>mileage when coming to grips with the conflictuous issues of 'internet
>governance'.
>
>By looking at 'the people' basically as consumers (admittedly with the
>attenant rights ) it is no wonder that ISOC is at loss to formulate any
>regulatory framework for upholding such utter uncommercial considerations
>as are eg freedom of expression, public domain, or general access. It
>grudgingly admit some kind of 'basic service' entitlement for 'desserving
>destitute'-type of individuals and organisations. But it is obvious from
>this round-up that non-commercial, not for profit activities are seen as
>(probably dispensable) excentric luxuries at best. If you're not fully
>paying your way on the Internet, you're there at sufferance, and you
>certainly won't belong to the 'key players'. Exactly the same problem that
>dodges ICANN: same refusal to be truly inclusive, and democratic, same
>charade
>as result (and I don't think 'our Andy' is going to change a lot, but good
>'they' are pissed all the same...)
>
>As long as this sort of blindness exist among those (mostly
>self-appointed) allegedly consensus-seeking regents of the Internet age, I
>think dialogue is futile and resistance (both open and passive) is the
>only way. The sole truly contrarian viewpoint in that issue is John Perry
>Barlow's article on 'Censorship 2000'. I'm afraid it merely functions as
>alibi and/or curio. It's worth reading all the same.
>
>cheers,
>patrice (and Diiiiiino?)
>
>
>On The Internet: http://www.isoc.org/oti/
>('The Internet is for Everyone' may be ISOC's motto, but the on-line mag
>is strictly for paying subscribers only...)

Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 28 2001 - 01:01:27 AST