[projectvrm] FYI: Internet governance

[John Wunderlich < >]

Internet governance should be an oxymoron? mmmmm.

I agree with the statement about either side of a transaction only needing to be concerned that the other side can fuflill their side of the bargain. That being said, there may be other stakeholders involved in the transaction. Transactions in items that are subject to reasonable regulations (explosives, dangerous chemicals) or where provenance is required (antiques, art) mean that the parties to the transaction should be individually accountable. That requires identification as well as authentication. Sales taxes, or value added taxes, are similar and are in the process of working themselves out. These are governance issues.

Check out patreon.com as one possible solution to funding creators. It updates the old idea of a patron and applies it to the Internet. It's one model that might answer your concerns about clarity regarding what's being exchanged.

(the rest of this post is a minor key rant. Feel free to disregard)

On the question of journalists and advocates, the Internet today has elements that remind me of the eighteenth century. Going back and reading the Federalist Papers in the U.S. or similar tracts from Europe makes us think that there was a much higher standard of writing. Not so much. Most of the writing from that time was just as ephemeral and light weight as the crap on most blogs (this screed probably included). The stuff we remember and that has made it into the history books is the quality stuff that survives. (See Sturgeon's Law). But like some eighteenth century writers, political writers and editorialists can face severe personal consequences for their writing in some countries. Publishing an anonymous pamphlet and distributing it on the streets of Boston, Paris, or Moscow was a lot easier than publishing an anonymous blog. But then, those writers aren't doing it to make a living. That being said, food has to be put on the table, and journalists have to eat, so some kind of anonymous (cash equivalent) donation or payment system is needed - especially in authoritarian regimes. Caveat emptor will apply of course, but anything that provides individual accountability to the recipient will put them at risk.

I read the oxymoron statement and thought maybe there was a bit of assuming the conclusion going on. So I checked Wikipedia for a definition of governance (pasted below). It seems to me that notion of Internet governance as an oxymoron is a conflation of the notion of the ability of anyone to run a web site and have it's commercial success determined by the market (one form of governance) and government rules (running the gamut from fraud or slander through national privacy laws to political restrictions on journalism).

If we look at the technical operation of the Internet for example, it depends on a series of rules defined in technical RFC's running from definitions of Ethernet, content and headers for TCP, IP, or UDP packets, the work of OASIS on XDI and so on. This is governance and absolutely essential to the running of the Internet.

If we look at commercial transactions on the web (B2B, B2C, C2C etc) then there is a struggle to transfer and apply national laws to the transnational nature of the Internet. In shipping (flags of convenience) and finance (tax havens) this type of situation has created a race to the ethical bottom and one hopes we can do better with things like VRM.

But there are a vast number of transactions that depend on the technical infrastructure, but are not commercial in nature. Email and the original usenet groups are cases in point. And even in this context I would suggest that governance is not an oxymoron. Being a newb in a group essentially means you haven't figured out the governance rules for that group. They may  be unwritten but are nontheless real.

So maybe instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting governance, I'm thinking it would be better to figure out a) what kind of goverance is actually operating, b) what kind of governance should be operating, and finally c) how to move from a) to b). 

Governance refers to "all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language."^[1] It relates to processes and decisions that seek to define actions, grant power and verify performance.

In general terms, governance occurs in three broad ways:^{[citation needed]}

1. Through networks involving public-private partnerships (PPP) or with the collaboration of community organisations;
2. Through the use of market mechanisms whereby market principles of competition serve to allocate resources while operating under government regulation;
3. Through top-down methods that primarily involve governments and the state bureaucracy.

To distinguish the term governance from government: "governance" is the concrete activity that reproduces a formal or informal organization. If the organization is a formal one, governance is primarily about what the relevant "governing body" does. If the organization is an informal one, such as a market, governance is primarily about the rules and norms that guide the relevant activity. Whether the organization is a geo-political entity (nation-state), a corporate entity (business entity), a socio-political entity (chiefdom, tribe, family, etc.), or an informal one, its governance is the way the rules and actions are produced, sustained, and regulated.

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014, Crosbie Fitch < ');" target="_blank"> > wrote:

'Internet governance' should be an oxymoron, but then those into wielding the blunt instrument of governance aren't that sharp.

 

When it comes to trade between two parties, either party isn't so concerned as to the (pseudonymous) identity of the other as that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain - will deliver. Identity is secondary - useful for influencing future trade, based on outcomes.

 

Journalism, advocacy, charity?

 

The journalist, advocacy group, and charity tend to have a website, which is a passable means of identity. I don't think they are too worried about identifying their patrons - especially if the patrons tend to deliver (payment).

 

The thing about online payment, is that you need to be EXTREMELY careful in identifying precisely what it is that is being exchanged. Is the journalist a charity? Do their patrons pay them unilaterally? Or is their payment contingent upon work?

 

Is the biggest problem a lack of a particular kind of payment facility? or, the lack of a particular kind of exchange facility?

---

From: Tom Crowl [mailto: ]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014 12:22pm
To: Graham Reginald Hill
Cc: William Dyson; ProjectVRM list; David Brin; Andy Oram
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [projectvrm] FYI: Internet governance

Hi Graham, I'm definitely a guy with an agenda. (never trust anybody who denies having one)... and I know can drive some crazy with it... though given time, contact and a chance for nuance... I get through to most.

Here it is: a one-click payment system... including a very low payment size threshold... enabled for at least certain types of payment (journalism, advocacy and charity especially)... and available broadly across the net.

This is an essential capability... and we suffer without it... (happy to have the debate on why)... and has a heck of a lot to do with VRM (at least as I understand its purposes)... and indirectly and over time... Internet governance and ownership.

On its mechanics: Easily done. There are a few methods. As to how that 'payment pathway might be placed in a solicitation in a message on the web or email (e.g. click here to save the whales)... this has also been examined and handled. (while I'm not a programmer my best friend is a retired senior project analyst, coordinator dude at a major Telcom who's spent a lifetime of work on billing, security and massive databases... this is doable and easily flow charted... we've spent hours talking about this.

Its in its use that over time we might expect more broadly representative systems. For me this had its genesis in recognizing a need for enabling "heat-from-the-bottom" and not necessarily wisdom though that's always welcome. This is a necessary tool to counter-balance the unavoidable "heat-from-the-top" which civilizations have a very hard time overcoming... and this is independent of campaign finance questions.... thought they're important.

Its not the only tool needed... (expanded uses of sortition in both corporate and civil government is another... but the payment system is the one I and the net can address right now.) I'm ready to go... the Internet seems to be dragging its feet.

On its governance: this is where we get into the 'governance-by-the-commons' question... and you're arguments are valid... but in this context the only governance envisioned is 'tending the pipes'... (in other words minimal... and not related to controversial aspects)...

Because in the immediate future one can expect that many jurisdictions might have very different ideas about "who gets to put up a button."... and can be expected to regulate that... whether we like it or not. (the micropayment and large numbers can be enormously powerful... and potentially could move a lot of money very quickly for God knows what if no safeguards were in place. (Click here to support our development of biological weapons in our basement!) And on the other side it could save independent investigative journalism.

BUT.. before those decisions have to be made... the capability has to exist... (Or as Robert Heinlein said: "The Roads Must Roll")

The big question for a VRM audience is "who holds identity"... And this is a very important issue... and here there are a few ways to go.... since while I've envisioned this as its own 'silo' with universal membership... this isn't necessarily the case. It could be a vehicle offered to various Identity silos seeking to offer the capability to their silo participants. (NO... each silo with their own separate and distinct signalling method won't work... that solicitation needs some centralized pathway to payment... though I'm still ready to hear the practical alternative)

As for the "let's make it all anonymous crowd"... that's fine and great for some (or much) communication and payment. But not for all. Because unlike a simple "like" button... there are a few parties here who really need to know who's clicking the button' and where the money's going to come from?

SO for me there's only one issue... getting across some understanding of why this capability is essential. Its clear that this isn't yet recognized... but I believe it will be.

Once that's recognized... (or hopefully before) I also believe a recognition of why its important to not be owned by any entity with a vested interest in any particular currency... or any particular party or government... or any particular commercial Internet behemoth though all will be elements in this concoction.

But first... the Roads Must Roll.

-- 
John Wunderlich

Fat fingered from a mobile device
Pleez 4give spelling errurz!