| Jay Fenello on 6 Oct 2000 07:09:30 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> Al Gore and the Internet |
At 06:45 AM 10/5/00, Roberto Verzola wrote:
> >Internet has the capacity to become a primary infrastructure
> >for communication during the 21st century, overtaking the
> >telephone and absorbing the mass media. I wish it could be
> >maintained as a neutral infrastructure - in the sense that
> >any telephone can call any other. Even in the telephone system,
> >there are inconsistencies with that vision (such as blocking
> >of certain numbers in businesses that don't want employees
> >wasting telephone time and money on 900 number services in the
> >US). The Internet as an infrastructure has to be supported and
> >maintained and that costs money. At present, the best engine
> >for achieving that is to make Internet a commercially supported
> >vehicle. Even national governments around the world could not
> >afford to pour into Internet the level of resources that the
> >private sector has provided and will likely continue to provide.
>
>This is probably the most important debate regarding the future
>direction of the Internet: will it be a public commons, maintained by
>public funds, or private space? Today it is increasingly private
>space, both the hardware infrastructure such as communication lines,
>routers and servers, and the software infrastructure such as IP number
>assignments and the DNS.
>
>The way Vint Cerf describes it, there is no choice but to make it even
>more so. And the way he sounded, the debate has ended before it could
>even begin in public.
>
>Civil society is being seduced to move all its manifestations to the
>Internet. Take care: we are being pushed/pulled ("there is no
>choice"/"the net is great") to move from public to private grounds.
>The private owners might seem benevolent, but it is in *their*
>property where we are being asked to live our future lives. If we can
>be ejected from public spaces like the radio spectrum, how much more
>from private spaces like the Internet?
>
>Roberto Verzola
Hi Robert,
I'm new to this list, but joined after
seeing Vint's posting here.
From my perspective, civil society isn't
being seduced, it is being systematically
excluded! Here's a recent article I wrote
on this topic.
FYI:
Jay.
>The Promise of the Internet
> By Jay Fenello
> An Aligning With Purpose(sm) Column
>
>Over the last couple of months, I've been trying to
>write an update about ICANN, the world's new Internet
>Governance body. It's not that I've had nothing to
>say, it's just that nothing has changed -- ICANN is
>still behaving very badly, and it is still marching
>forward without any opposition from those in a
>position to stop it.
>
>In fact, in a recent radio interview on the topic <http://www.programs.wfcr.com/pm091200.ram>, one of
>the DJ's asked me what people could do to stop ICANN?
>I am sorry to say, I had *no* suggestions!
>
>Imagine the implications of this statement. We have
>just finished establishing the world's first Internet
>Governance body, and it is corrupt. Has been from day
>one. (It was founded through a corrupt process!)
>And there is nothing we can do about it!!!
>
>Truth of the matter is, ICANN exists because it was
>supported by the U.S. Government, by huge multinational
>corporations, and by the elite media. (See comments by
>Larry Lessig, famed legal scholar and candidate for the
>ICANN Board <http://www.egroups.com/message/awpd/150>.)
>
>That ICANN exists, and that it continues to behave badly,
>are both very troubling. More importantly though, is what
>these facts say about our government? About our media?
>About our judicial system? If any of these institutions
>worked as our mythology would have us believe, ICANN would
>not be a problem today. But ICANN does exist, and it is a
>problem.
>
>This transfer of regulatory authority from a sovereign
>nation to a supra-national NGO is certainly a trend
>these days. Consider for a moment the WTO (World Trade
>Organization). It operates on the same model as ICANN,
>and is supported by the same cast of characters. (see
>the Harvard interview for similarities: <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/governance/fenello.html#wto>).
>
>But why? Why is the U.S. Government working with
>multinational corporations and the elite media to further
>an agenda that is destroying our civil rights and our
>national sovereignty in the process?
>
>Here's my theory: Throughout history, there has always
>been an "upper class" who has made decisions for everyone
>else. When this upper class has been "enlightened," the
>countries have prospered in peace and prosperity. When
>this upper class has been "corrupted" with unlimited
>power, it has been the worst of times.
>
>The difference between an "enlightened" and a "corrupted"
>upper class is often the degree of power they hold over
>their subjects, and the degree of control they hold over
>information. (Absolute power, and all that . . .)
>
>Our history includes many examples of people controlling
>information in order to control the populace. Some examples
>include the power of the church before the Reformation, and
>the power of the fascist state during World War II. In both
>examples, the power structure depended on the control of
>information.
>
>So what does this say about our current situation?
>
>First, we must realize that power is fleeting, and it is
>always cycling between consolidation and dispersion. In
>fact, since our country's birth, there have been many
>cycles of power consolidation and dispersion. (Consider
>the trust busting activities of Teddy Roosevelt.)
>
>Second, we must also realize that technology is a great
>destabilizer of power. (Consider how the printing press
>helped people like Martin Luther expose the hypocrisy of
>the church, leading to its eventual decline.)
>
>Finally, changes in power structures that result from
>changes in technology can not be stopped! If the existing
>power structure recognizes that the changes are inevitable,
>they can embrace the changes and share in the new order.
>If the existing power structure holds on too tightly, the
>changes can be violent and deadly. (Compare how England
>and France transitioned from monarchies to modern states:
>The English monarchy retained some power in a peaceful
>evolution, while the French monarchy was beheaded in
>a violent revolution).
>
>Over the last several decades, we have seen tremendous
>growth in the power and influence of the modern corporation.
>And as these corporations have grown in power, they have
>also changed the rules of the game. What was once considered
>bribery, is now called "soft money." And what was once a
>government by the people, for the people, now seems to be
>a government for large corporations, by large corporations.
>
>Consider the special gifts that large corporations receive
>from publicly financed initiatives (what Ralph Nader calls
>"corporate welfare"). We see it in the gifting of Internet
>assets to the *right* corporations, and we see it in the
>gifting of huge blocks of radio spectrum to broadcasters).
>
>And consider those special gifts that help the existing
>power structure retain control, like the Telecom Act of
>1996. Before this act, corporations had a strict limit
>on the number of media outlets they could own or control.
>After the Act, these restrictions were greatly reduced.
>Today, less than 10 media giants own or control over 80%
>of *all* media outlets! (That's why we see 20 minutes
>of news covering what Elian Gonzalez had for breakfast,
>but nothing on legislation pending before Congress!!!)
>
>Just like the French aristocracy before it, it would
>appear that our current establishment is desperately
>trying to hang on to their power and control despite
>the challenges brought about by new technologies.
>
>The Promise of the Internet
>
>Yes, ICANN is corrupt. Yes, it is the result of a
>corrupt process. Yes, it continues to behave as the
>worst form of governance.
>
>[In addition to multiple complaints about ICANN gaming
>it's current elections, it is also rumored that the ICANN
>staff has been soliciting new TLD applications from some
>of the huge corporations who funded ICANN's start. If true
>(and based on ICANN's prior excesses, it probably is), it
>is a form of fraud and conspiracy designed to consciously
>and deliberately harm the small businesses that started new
>TLDs years ago. See www.iperdome.com and www.webtld.com
>for more info.]
>
>But there is reason for hope. First, we are starting
>to see some real debate over the failings of ICANN.
><http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17779,00.html>
>
>Second, despite the repeated charges of ICANN gaming
>the elections, there is an outside chance that a real
>reformer will be elected to the ICANN board. Even so,
>there is no guarantee that a single person will be
>able to change anything.
>
>Now, some claim that anyone who works within ICANN is
>a traitor to the cause, but I'll reserve judgement. If
>and when those small companies that were harmed by the
>ICANN steamroller are acknowledged and treated fairly,
>I'll know that the ICANN problem has been solved.
>
>But ultimately, changes of this magnitude require a
>new consciousness on the part of the people. Just like
>the printing press helped dispel the illusion presented
>by the church, the Internet will help dispel the illusion
>presented by our elite media. And once the existing power
>structure shares some of its power and control (preferably
>voluntarily), our world will become a better place.
>
>That is the promise of the Internet
>-- and the promise of our future.
>
>Until next time . . .
>
>+++
>
>Jay Fenello,
>New Media Strategies
>------------------------------------
>http://www.fenello.com 678-585-9765
>Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
>-------------------------------------------------------
>"We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle
>between corporate globalization and popular democracy."
>http://cyberjournal.org/cj/korten/korten_feasta.shtml
> -- David Korten
>
>Copyright (c) 2000 Jay Fenello -- All rights reserved
>
>Permission is hereby granted to 1) redistribute this
>column in its entirety via email, discussion lists,
>and newsgroups, and 2) publish this column in its
>entirety on non-profit web sites.
>
>To join in the discussion on the topics in this column,
>subscribe to the Aligning with Purpose(sm) discussion list
>by sending a blank email to [email protected].
>
>To receive future issues of this column, subscribe to the
>Aligning with Purpose(sm) announcements list by sending a
>blank email to [email protected].
+++
Jay Fenello,
New Media Strategies
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com 678-585-9765
Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
--------------------------------------------------------
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]