[Chapter-delegates] Lost in the splinternet

[Richard Hill]

Thanks for this. I am cross-posting to the Internet Policy List.

 

A different view, from the perspective of those that appear to be advocating the “splintering”, is given here:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/the_u_s_should_stop_lecturing_about_internet_values.html 

 

It seems to me that the fundamental issue is that offline law applies equally online. So inconsistencies in national laws hamper international trade. That’s true of everything, not just the Internet: as a trivial example, think of the hassle of having to travel with power plug converters because national regulations impose different shapes for power plugs. As less trivial example, think of the cost of having to comply with the tax laws of the various countries in which you are doing business.

 

There are two ways to harmonize national laws: one country can impose its laws on other countries, or countries can work together to agree to harmonize their laws.

 

There are many examples of the first approach, I mention here only a few well known cases: the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the so-called Holy Roman Empire under Charles V, and the British Empire.

 

There are also many examples of the second approach, for example the Law of the Sea, the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the ITU Radio Regulations.

 

As we all know, both approaches are being pushed with respect to various aspects of Internet governance.

 

The Economist article concludes by more-or-less arguing that “multi-stakeholderism” could be a solution to all issues.  But there are many different variations of multi-stakeholder processes. As the article itself says, processes used to make technical standards won’t necessarily work well to find solutions to political and legal issues.  Further, as far as I can tell, multi-stakeholder processes work best when there is a win-win outcome: that is, when all the stakeholders will gain by finding an agreed solution.

 

It is not obvious to me that all of the issues regarding Internet governance can be resolved by finding a win-win outcome. But maybe I’m too pessimistic.


Best,

Richard

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Glenn McKnight
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 17:25
To: ISOC Chapter Delegates
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Lost in the splinternet

 

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21709531-left-unchecked-growing-maze-barriers-internet-will-damage-economies-and?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/onlinegovernancelostinthesplinternet

 


Left unchecked, the growing maze of barriers on the internet will damage economies and hamper political freedom


Nov 5th 2016  The Economist




Glenn McKnight
mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
skype  gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20161120/3f3cdc8b/attachment.htm>