Re: WTO an even worse possibility as Inet regulator

[attila <attila@primenet.com>]

On Thu, 30 Nov 1995 hallam@w3.org wrote:

> 
> >  a very credible white paper is circulating for the WTO to establish an 
> >internet CZAR to regualate the Internet and level the playing field world 
> >wide. 
> 
> >   personally, the Feds and the FCC are bad enough --now they want to 
> >have a **global** bureaucracy play god  -???
> 
> 
> Depends on what the role of the Czar is. If it is to stop sillyness like 
> border disputes and keep national governments out of the loop then it
> could be a good thing. If they want to regulate it is a bad thing.
>
   	<attila>  

	1. unfortunately, the state intent is to regulate.

 	2. have you ever seen a bureaucracy that does not turn to 
           regulation one in has the power?  (unless they were asleep <G>)

> WTO is mainly known for the GATT which they brokered. This is basically
> an agreement amongst national governments to be "hands off" in their
> tariff regulations. 
> 
	<attila sez>  but WTO is also accumulating a rather larger 
    bureaucracy and is challeng Uncle Sam on severl major unilateral
    actions.  They will have the power of international courts which,
    today, the U.S.  can ignore, but at great international bad publicity
    in a time where he have few enough friends as it is --if the U.S.
    slips into the abyss which the incompetent beltway maggots have been
    building for 50 years, the US' current "friends" will be first in line
    to screw us over --and it will be by the WTOs and world courts, or the
    Rockefeller NWO --read UN, and UN troops in America. 

	As slippery and somewhat slimy as Gingrich is, so far he has been
    the only one to put his career on line admitting to the fact the
    current overstuffed bureaucracy *does not work* --now, if he could get
    a clue other than get the government out of your nose and really
    deliver (impossible given Clinton's retrenchment in Fair Deal
    idealism)....

> There is the potential for governments to regulate the Internet. It is
> in everyone's interest to keep hands off but if one starts to regulate
> then it is in others interests to regulate. The general soulution to
> prisoners dilema games is to form some type of alliance. It is not
> possible to form alliances in classical prisoners dilemas since they
> are restricted to a single dilema at a time. Givernments are involved
> with multiple dilemas and hence have multiple agreements. The main reason to
> keeo a treaty is that the credibility of government depends on keeping 
> treaties. Thus a treaty can solve a prisoners dilema problem since 
> the gain from breaking one treaty is more than offset by the potential loss
> through other sides abrogating other treaties.
> 
> 
> I suspect that the role of an Internet Czar would be mainly ensuring that 
> fat Internet pipes arrived throughout the third world. George Sorros has
> been very active in this area, he paid for much of the infrastructure
> development into Eastern Europe. If we could persuade Bill Gates that his 
> mission in life was to cable Africa to the Internet somehow we might have the
> whole planet online before 2000.
> 
> I would not be too worried about WTO banning crypto or attempting looney
> tune ideas like insisting on OSI protocols. The UN generally does some very 
> worthwhile work in allocating radio frequencies and such like and has done so 
> for many years without problems. They allocate areas of the clarke belt for 
> satelites and do all sorts of mundane tasks.
> 
> 
> One of the odd things about power is that the larger the scale the more mundane 
> the decisions. At the local level councillors decide to build or close schools 
> and hospitals. At the global level negotiations are held on the size of holes in 
> fishing nets and the exact specifications of ball bearings.
> 
> If people want to see the Federal government weakened in power the only way to 
> do so is to make it ceed power both upwards and downwards. A national speed 
> limit may be a bad idea (I personally think what was wrong was 55mph) but 
> national standard roadsigns is a good idea. International standard roadsigns are 
> a better idea still. 
> 
	<attila sez>  amen for international road signs --go metric! join 
    the living!  go 24 hour clocks and not be lost in the rest of the world!

        and, while we're at it, let's use universal time! yeah, right! 
    this one I can see.

> 
> 		Phill.
>