Mueller-Maguhn On Internet Governance

minna writes "In a recent article for the major German daily FAZ, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, newly elected ICANN board member for Europe, declares "What lawyers call "intellectual property" is -- as every Latin student knows -- no more than theft from the public domain. And because we, the netizens, now have no intention of letting these thieves destroy the public domain, we had to take a little corrective action; everybody goes their own way and we're all linked to the network. Through the public domain, through the collective unconscious and through Eris, the goddess of conflict, of discord, of argument. ... I intend to keep the public domain free of commercial rules, to guard the free flow of information and to give the bits their own domain. We want endless gardens of data, where the bits can flower, flourish and reproduce. Those are the cultural aspects of my government policy." The English version of his program for ICANN was distributed on the nettime list."

Comments

Bold words, but will there be anything else?

[flatpack]

These are extremely bold words which should find favour with all slashbots worried about the current trends in providing increased "security" for intellectual property due to all those nasty thieves and pirates that lurk in warez boards and FTP sites.

And whilst I applaud the stand he has chosen to make, I am (again) forced to ask the question, will he be able to acheive any of this? His policy seems to be in direct violation of what business interests want, and it also seems as though this kind of anarchist manifesto brings its own dangers.

Do we really want one hundred percent freedom from any kind of intellectual property? The existance of the public domain should be fought for, but at the same time people have the right to choose to sell the end-product of their time and effort, not have it stolen and copied the instant they attempt to make it available.

Just look at the difference in quality between public domain software and licensed software. When things are in the public domain they are invariably of a far lower quality than equivalent things in the commercial domain. Without financial reward a lot of work would simply not be done, and we'd all be poorer for the loss of a huge part of our cultural heritage.

Remember, some of the greatest artists of all time were paid to do what they did. If they hadn't have been paid, do you think that we'd have some of the great works of art we have today, or do you think that these people would have led a short, harsh life begging on the streets? I think the answer is obvious.

Re:Bold words, but will there be anything else?

[Anonymous Coward]

The claim that public domain software is of a far lower quality than commercial: I would say the opposite is true.

Copyright needs to be brought back into check. I say 20 years is the maximum for any copyright.

Re:Bold words, but will there be anything else?

[radja]

>Remember, some of the greatest artists of all time were paid to do what they did.

True. they were indeed paid. For now I'll take the Nightwatch by Rembrandt van Rijn as an example. (incidentally, Rembrandt died quite poor). Rembrandt didn't think one day: well.. I'll make this really cool portrait of the Amsterdam 'Schutterij' (a city-guard like organisation, IIRC). Some day in 1639 Frans Banning Cocq came to him asking for a portrait of the schutterij. So Rembrandt was paid for his time, materials and lotsa other stuff. but NOT for intellectual property.

//rdj

Re:Bold words, but will there be anything else?

[bug1]

Remember, some of the greatest artists of all time were paid to do what they did. If they hadn't have been paid, do you think that we'd have some of the great works of art we have today, or do you think that these people would have led a short, harsh life begging on the streets? I think the answer is obvious.

I dont think the answer is obvious at all, i can see no obvious reason that an artist has only two paths available to them (street begggar, or commercial artist).

I think great art is inspired by passion, not money.

If an artist gets paid to do what they love then thats a bonus, if they have to get a regular job (street begger?) and do what they love in there own time then thats fair enough.

If an artist produces work just for the money then why do it at all.

Re:Bold words, but will there be anything else?

[PhilHibbs]

You're comparing "Public Domain" with "Commercial" - what about the middle-ground of Open Source & Free Software, which is neither?

Re:Bold words, but will there be anything else?

[DGolden]

I'd like to see copyright AND patents rescaled to the de-facto standard internet time metric of 1 Real World Month = 1 Internet Year. That way, Software patents would last about 2 Real World years, and even ridiculously long copyrights (80 years in the real world) would last about 7 years. That time scale sounds about right to me, given the speed at which internet companies move.

In a scarcity economy, the patent on invention wasn't orginally a bad idea, neither was limited copyright. We're not quite post-scarcity yet* (It'll take nanotech and fusion for that...), so there's probably still a place for them, but scaled to realistic levels in internet time.

*As Iain M. Banks would say in a Culture novel "Money is a sign of Poverty"

FINALLY

[Jack9]

Finally, a realist speaks on the inevitability of the demise of IP. I dont understand how anyone can deny the obviousness of the final result of a global network. You cannot stop people from doing what they want. They want to die. They will die. They want to speak. They will speak. They want to spread information. It will spread. I'm glad someone out there sees it. Now the question of the reliability of information arises. Look no farther than the cryptographic community? I think not. Look to popular culture. Is not Amazon a model for a trusted source? Complete as can be imagined (and trusted), as accurate in tracking version, author, publication date, etc. as you can find.

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.

This is why I voted for Andy

[anticypher]

Andy is pretty cool. CCC meetings with him are always more intense. He sees the world in a very artistic light, as a place for individuals, a breeding ground for freedom and new ideas.

ICANN meetings will be very interesting with the currently elected body. Andy, Karl Auerbach, and some of the other new reps make a good counterbalance to the suits and Esther Dyson. Any bets the newly elected reps will be excluded after the first few meetings?

the AC

Re:This is why I voted for Andy

[Apotsy]

Any bets the newly elected reps will be excluded after the first few meetings?

That's almost a certainty. Hell, I wonder if they might even be excluded before the first few meetings! Given the current boards behavior, I wouldn't put it past them. If they're unhappy with the results of the elections, they might just change or ignore their bylaws and simply say "Sorry, even though people voted for you, you don't fit in with our 'consensus', we can't allow you to come in a mess things up. Goodbye."

Of course, instead of kicking them out, they could just cut troublemakers like Karl and Andy out of the loop by pushing more and more activities off onto "the staff". The non-elected, pro-business, pro-trademark corporate lackeys would have access to "the staff", while the elected board members would not. They've already made steps in this direction, with many of their decisions lately being attributed to the recommendations of "the staff". It all smacks of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority". Ugh.

Yep, if the elected board members become to much of an annoyance, they will simply kick them out, probably claiming (with a completely straight face) that they were interefering with the "consensus" that the board represents.

He seems ok...

[pallex]

...but i dont think it`ll last. He goes, or ICANN goes.
I give it 2 years.

How ironic...

[grarg]

can't help but think that this detracts from the tone of the piece somewhat...

© Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited.

Bad Translation

[HerbieTMac]

I sincerely hope that no one takes that translation on the basis of its tone. Quite frankly, it has been stripped of its jesting nature and sounds extremely radical. This does not exist in the original German.

To put it more succinctly, this type of writing is an art form almost solely reserved for formal languages. It is hard enough to express in English the formality incurred by the use of the German 'Sie' much less the ironic tone with which this article imitates a FAZ formalistic style. The translator has taken the liberty of stripping the article of its self-depricating jabs while leaving in place the inflamatory statements which they mediate.

We lose Herr Mueller-Maguhn's original meaning if we are reading this article for anything other than straight factual text and even then I would be suspicious as the translator left out some whole sentences which moderate the extremist views.

Undoubtedly, the /. population will love this new, edited version. We will read only as far as we want and then take small quotes from the article which further obscure its true meaning. Please take this with a grain of salt the size of Rhode Island.

Re:Bad Translation

[Arthur Dent 75]

This is absolutely true. The translation is probably intentionally misleading.

I'll give you an example:
It was only the vigilance of my mother that prevented me from joining the left-wing terrorist organization Red Army Faction at around the age of 11. [The paragraph ends here]

The german text adds the following afterthought:
Admitted, I was a bit young.

So he makes clear that he never really wanted to be a terrorist, he just liked some of the terrorists' ideas.

There's a lot of this kind of stuff. The translation is not actually wrong, but a lot of stuff is just gone in the english text. All the self-ironic humorous subtleties are missing.

This is not a translation, this is more sort of a commentary on what he actually said. If you don't believe me, just count the paragraphs. There are a least 4 or 5 paragraphs missing in the english translation.

--

A new government? Only if we try.

[shomon2]

This guy obviously has some very idealistic ideas about the way the internet should be run. I appreciate his youthful spirit and determined words. In particular I start to see quite a novel way of seeing the way the ICANN could go, although IMO it is quite hard to get to where I think he's going:

For example, he is saying (Round the bottom of the page) that "Even the suits can have their own domains" in his "garden of bytes". He also says:

"The job of the government will otherwise comprise the creation of interconnected parallel universes through the coexistence of different cultures with separate rules. And then everybody will do what they want."

I don't understand here if he means the US government should do it, or if he's meaning that that's what ideally the government should do. If that's what he means, I don't see too many problems with the technical side of things getting done. Already in 10 years of having the internet, we have enough technological structures around us for like minded people to use them to, say, build an operating system, start companies, chat, discuss...etc etc. So it's not hard to imagine that in maybe 10 more years we'll be able to govern ourselves from it, at least for some aspects, in some completely different way from how modern geographically based governments do. So maybe he means that the ICANN is going to be that brave new government (or set of domains, as he'd probably like to call them) so that each person can be free to do what they wish. I think that at least with copyright, patent, free speach and software laws this could be technically possible already today.

And I stress technically, because it's not the technology that automagically changes the world around us. It is us, the people in it who change things. And this only comes from us changing. The closed minded people who can't concieve of it have to change. The open minded people who can, and want to actively do it, have to change, and go through whatever difficulties will get them ready to get it done. It's only through our maturity as a society that we can ready ourselves for changes like that. If the people aren't ready for this, Müller-Maguhn's ICANN isn't going to work.

A few questions

[malahoo]

First: Are we sure this was written by the right guy?
Second: This wasn't originally in English, was it?

I ask these questions because anyone who reads the article in English will find it... um... less than coherent. Although the article's tone is consistent, and it is clear that Müller-Maguhn is trying to establish a position of leadership on par with those of the world's major nations, the article contains frequent references that I just couldn't keep up with.

For instance, as Müller-Maguhn caricaturizes the evolution of the Internet, he is preoccupied with the idea of the Internet as "parallel universe" , which as far as I can tell, includes

• bits [that] flower, flourish and reproduce
• boundless amounts of money
• spaceports
• (an alternative to) Blowing up concrete prisons

If you haven't read the article, you might be a little confused by these examples. Rest assured, reading the article will confuse you even more.

Additionally, Müller-Maguhn's attitude towards the "suits" is unbelievably simplistic:

And these suit-wearers wear ties, which are known to restrict the oxygen supply to the brain -- thus depriving them of any imagination and preventing them from [blah blah blah...]

I can't believe that someone who wants to be taken seriously would write such flamebait, and otherwise fill his statement with what reminds me of an LSD trip.

So, I ask, is this a fake? Did translation so mangle the connotation of his metaphors as to completely destroy his meaning? Or does this guy have a good dealer?


If you're not wasted, the day is.

Re:A few questions

[HerbieTMac]

This translation has all the clarity of the Fish. It is unfortunate as the original is insightful, well-reasoned (from a point) and funny.

To answer your 4 confusions:

• bits [that] flower, flourish and reproduce

Here he is referring to the aforementioned data-gardens. He uses the metaphor to show that if data is constrained by too many rules and regulations, (weeds) the information will not have enough free space to grow. This relates to the view that "Information wants to be free."

• Boundless amounts of money

Here he is making fun of the people flocking to the Internet precisely because of its size. He draws the comparison (sarcasticly, I believe) that if the Internet is infinitely large with few borders to commerce, then the potential for commerce (or making money) would also be infinitely large.

• Here, he refers back to the two types of internet "content-makers". The first is looking at the possibility of an endless amount of money (see above) without concerning themselves with the regulation. The second is frightened by the amount of regulation which is wielded by a small number of governments trying to prevent parts of the internet (France vs. neo-nazis) from penetrating their national borders. The response (hyperbole) is to move to a spaceport (no government), south seas island and buy server space in non-governmental regions such as satellites.

• Blowing up concrete prisons

This is the most prevailing metaphor in the article. The translator, unfortunately did not see fit to translate enough of it to make it understandable. There is a german verb festzementieren which literally translates to solidly cementing. His first reference to this is translated instead as "regimented".

He speaks of the lawyers and law-makers worrying initially about terrorism and building large "safety-devices" (presumably against porn and the like) instead of regulating intellectual property on the net. Rules on regular means of communication (HTTP, FTP) became cemented. Thus people who did not wish to be tied to these cemented rules created new means of communication and new areas (protocols) of the internet. This is the refernce to blowing up concrete prisons. The creation of protocols such as Gnutella, Freenet and Banana Tree essentially "blew up" the old set of cemented rules (prisons).

As to the last comment about ties restricting the supply of oxygen to the brain, there is a bit of comedy which is missing from the translation. It is a subtle jab at the lawyers of ICANN in German. In English, it becomes a clumbsy frontal assault. The point remains, however, that the ICANN administration has not seen fit to create a set of network names specifically for companies to lay claim to and allow the rest of the Internet to exist as a "parallel universe" with free expression (good or bad).

I hope this clears some issues up. Incidentally, the original title of the article was not "Just Do Whatever You Want" but "An Explaination of Governing Theory". That in and of itself may give you an idea of the ideological slant of the translator.

Re:A few questions

[kris]

Blowing up concrete prisons

This is the most prevailing metaphor in the article. The translator, unfortunately did not see fit to translate enough of it to make it understandable. There is a german verb festzementieren which literally translates to solidly cementing.

There is another level of subtelety here, which cannot be translated, but only understood historically and with reference to the Rote Armeee Fraktion (RAF) further up in his text.

The RAF terrorists did kill several high ranking figures in policics and economy, which makes it somewhat hard to align with their political views. They did one thing though which was quite funny and well executed despite being an act of terrorism and producing several miliion $$$ in damages: They demolished the high security prison in Weiterstadt to the ground just a few days before that prison was ready to accept the first prisoners. Nobody was killed in that operation, in fact nobody was even there but some old watchmen which were easily dealt with.

They literally blew up a concrete prison.

It took four years and 100 million Deutschmark ($50 million) to rebuild the Weiterstadt prison, which was opened in mid 1997.

© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp

Re:A few questions

[kris]

See
Anschlag auf den Knast Weiterstadt for more information about the blown up concrete prison (german language).

© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp

Comunism

[Geese_Howard]

No more IP? that's communism.
ofcourse, comunism in it's purest form *should* work, sharing everything among the comunity is a great idea, it's just a shame that the examples we've seen of this form of government are so bad (China, USSR) that it's tough to get a read on if it could work or not.....

Re:Comunism

[XNormal]

Rejection of IP is can be considered "communism" only if you accept the fallacy that IP is really property. IP is not property, it's a deal.

In case of patents the terms of the deal go this way:

"Make the details of your invention publicly known and in return we will give you a limited period where you can use the powers of our courts to harrass people who use your invention without your permission."

Do you see any property here? I don't. In the past, this deal has had an overall positive effect on innovation and society. In recent years the interpretation of the terms of the deal has taken a bad turn, though.


----

Patent Extremism Either Way ... ARGH!

[resistant]

In a recent article for the major German daily FAZ, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, newly elected ICANN board member for Europe, declares "What lawyers call 'intellectual property' is -- as every Latin student knows -- no more than theft from the public domain.

Oh, brother.

If the situation with truly scary patents weren't so bad, if land-sharks (corrupt lawyers) weren't already stealing public domain intellectual fruit wholesale, I'd give this fellow the hairy eyeball, and a verbal pineapple to boot.

As it is, I do remark that there is a huge difference between an idea that would have occurred to someone else about ten minutes later or which is really obvious to any fifth-grader, and an idea which would not have occurred to anyone else for at least several more months, let alone years or centuries. Patents have their place, although not nearly so much place as they've been made to take by frighteningly greedy corporate masters. Many recent patents, particularly so-called "business method" patents, look these days like the 600-pound fellow who waddles into the all-you-can-eat pizza shop with the fixed intention of eating everything in the place, even to grabbing food from everyone else already there, to be sure they have nothing and he has everything.

This isn't even getting into works of literature and art. Just because a man understands and appreciates Shakespeare or Madonna, doesn't mean he has any talent or other ability to produce works of that quality. Works that couldn't or wouldn't be produced by anyone else, very much deserve legal and social protection. I don't advocate initiation of force, though -- the corporate thugs who crash violently into homes and private businesses to "seize stolen property" aren't seizing stolen property at all, but rather stealing someone else's CD-ROM's and printed materials and computers at gunpoint with force and fear, and these thugs deserve to be clubbed into submission, forcibly lined up against a wall, and shot like mad dogs.

Ah, well. Enough of this. Back I go to producing my own "intellectual property" that no doubt will be pirated, much of which piracy will be egged on by yours truly as part of a certain enlightened business method (no, I won't patent the business method, even though it could be patented in today's creepy, nightmarish patent environment 8^(.

You're the socialist..

[joss]

The argument "how will these people support themselves", we must have laws to protect the income of these people from the free market.. is a socialist argument. That's what unions, price-protection schemes, minimum-wage etc are all about. We must have government laws and enforced government control of everything... It's hilarious - you think you're fighting the capitalist/socialist argument and it's *not* related, but if anything you're arguments are the wrong way round.

I'm a software developer, trust me, we'll manage just fine... We won't get as rich as Gates, but then again we weren't going to be anyway.

Your ideas about money and property are antiquated and not clearly thought out - I know them well, I would have agreed with you entirely two years ago. This may seem ridiculous to you but in 50 years or so, people will look back and laugh at the ridiculous efforts people made to ensure false scarcity of "their" information - a classic prisoners dilemma. If everyone on the planet had access to *all* information on the planet everyone would be better off.

Then there is the "who would create it" argument, which is also bogus. People (in "advanced" world) don't work for material wealth - they work for status. Does a lawyer really work 70 hours a week because the latest model mercedes is so much more comfortable - of course not. The only reason he cares that he's driving the latest model mercedes is the status it affords him in his brain-damaged world. In an IP free world, status will be obtained by creating useful stuff and having it used by as many people as possible.

The difference between a "bit" and an "it" is disappearing. I'm a little ahead of the game here - I used to work at 3Dsystems where I could download a vrml model off the net and print it out. As technology advances, nanotech etc, almost the only type of wealth that matters will be IP. Our model of an optimal economy is stuck in a local minima at the moment. Capitalism is a good system for optimal distribution of scare resources but people are too stupid to notice when the model is no longer valid. The internet provides enough of a jolt to push us out. Various misguided selfish interests will try to keep humanity stuck, but I don't think they'll win.

Re:Hey, Mr Katz

[DGolden]

And block satellite launchers or outlaw dishes, outlaw making little robotic router-fish to swim round the pacific running Freenet nodes, outlaw blimp relays, outlaw nanotech. Pretty soon, you'll have to outlaw everything, right down to carrier pigeons. And you'd have to do it internationally. It'd be madness,and sure, there's a small, but finite chance of that taking place, but it's a VERY samll chance.

Re:Hey, Mr Katz

[uradu]

> only allow people to pass along information that is a) unencrypted

Just out of curiosity, how could you establish in an automated way that data coming through is not encrypted? Enforce periodic occurences of boilerplate plaing text phrases, maybe "ready as the devil" every 100 bytes or so? I'm curious.

Re:Judge Kaplan

[mindstrm]

Judge Kamplan issued a *prelimenary injunction, as required by law*, until the trial is over.

He did not 'decide that linking to DeCSS was illegal'.

Re:Anarchy

[Crash Culligan]

Quality on the Internet relies on three things:

1. The quality of the information,
2. The veracity of the person who posts the information, and
3. The ability of people to find that information.

People will go to those areas where they find what quality they need. If a site doesn't provide information in a timely fashion, or it's impossible to locate, it will be ignored and eventually (probably) taken down. That's attrition.

The viability of a site depends on all three. People will stop looking for The Ultimate Page if they stumble across one that's Good Enough.

If it's convincing, a talented liar can post utter nonsense and get traffic, but sooner or later, he'll be caught. (In an ideal world, anyway.)

---

New Translation

[FreeUser]

In an effort to provide a more balance translation, I've taken the last couple of hours to piece this together. I've taken a (very few) liberties with the verbiage to try and preserve the tone and meaning, and think I've done a better job than the original.

Comments, criticisms, improvements are defintely welcome!

--- BEGIN HERE ---

POLICY STATEMENT

Very Well. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been asked to write a Policy Statement. Indeed I was asked by a Newspaper which, I am told, is read mostly in governmental circles.

I am to write a Governmental Policy Statement. I, who never could stand governments. I have only my mothers vigilance to thank that I, as a child at the age of 11, did not join the Red Army Faction. Admittedly, I was a bit young at the time.

Nevertheless I had in some fashion sympathy for the terrorists. At the local police station I requested and received a "most wanted" poster. At last, pictures of people I could relate to, who obviously disliked Suits as much as I did. For some reason my mother didn't approve of my hanging a "most wanted" poster between pictures of German pop bands. So my mother took it away, and this intrusion into my own autonomy annoys me to this day.

Later I seem to have grown up, although critics insist this hasn't yet happened. Well, they have to make their own judgements. In any event I have now been elected into a World Government. What, you don't believe me? That is why I am writing this Government Policy Statement. Some governments must make clear their policies, some more than others.

In the minds of some people, reality is being increasingly influenced by media content that can be accessed via electronic networks. The Internet is not just one of these networks that are based on protocols, standards, address assignments and rules. It is first and foremost a cultural area where participants are not committed to being either senders or receivers. Net reality is defined by the users.

ICANN regulates the distribution of Names, Numbers, the introduction of protocols and their applicable rules - i.e. the internet's architecture. In other words, it governs the internet.

Since I am supposed to explain the policy of this government to you, I need to explain it in terms of media with which your cultural circle is familiar. The generation of those currently in government grew up with vacuum tube radios. Back then one could easilly distinguish between the broadcaster and the receiver. This is called the Broadcast Model, and is a thing of the past. Today, the internet defines a communcation space, which we refer to as the Network Model. And anyone who is connected can enter this space, have a look around and take or contribute something. On the internet we call this the Gift Culture. A small, electronic paradise. Who did I just hear muttering "social romantic?"

Wonderful things have developed in the time, as this network of networks comprised of many diverse people engaged in energetic exchange created a new, global culture. One could find anything on the internet, for the planet is big, the aliens were already among us and, well, the lawyers were far away. They were busy making new laws against terrorsts and building huge security and police bureacracies.

Please understand, blowing up newly constructed prisons is all well and good, but moving into the internet was a much more fundamental form of liberation. Our thoughts were finally free! Admittedly, even on the internet there were a few people who tried to place boundries of the freedom of thought. Then money came into the picture, and if the internet were truly without boundries, then naturally that meant boundless wealth.

Since I don't want to offend the religious feelings of certain people, and certainly not in a Government Policy Statement, I won't say anything with regards to "eCommerce" or "eBusiness." Believe in whatever or whomever you wish. Faith is said to move mountains.

But tell your lawyers to leave us alone. The Businesspeople have unfortunately brought lawyers along, who see a potential contract even in the purchase of a bag of gummy bears and apply such horrid terms as "piratecy" to the natural act of reproducing bits of data.

And now that the Internet is beginning to flourish globally, they suddenly want to declare "intellectual property." And then scream loudly when they discover, that all day long and on every computer on the planet what they call "theft" occurs. And of course, they want to build in anti-theft anti-theft devices -- filters, policemen and jails.

OK, that is the current situation. And we, as netizens, have to respond. Some of us have concentrated more on the money side, while those with more foresight have rented spaceports, South Sea islands and servers in satellites in preparation for the coming confrontation.

The Internet was essentially based on one common language for computers to talk to each other and one address domain for contacting each other. The U.S. government, however, was involved in the development of the language, the assignment of addresses and the creation of the name domain. At some point, when the governments of other countries and the generation of suits discovered the World Wide Web, they also wanted a voice. But this is really a different, long story, which I'll skip over, even though it did ultimately result in the foundation of ICANN as a business entity.

So, we now have ICANN, a company originally founded by the United States government under California Law, that not only regulates the worldwide distribution of Names, numbers, and the implimentation of protocols, but also (almost) controls the critical components of the centralized, heiarchical namespace. I say "almost" because the American government does not want to give up control of the key component, namely the root-Zone file.

ICANN wishes to govern, but doesn't wish to admit this openly. The company has always been very careful to remain "just" a technical committee that regulated "only" technical questions and created "only" the assignment rules for names and numbers. It was no use. What happened is what always happens when centralized bodies expand -- whether they regulate things on a supposedly "representative" basis or not. The era of greed began.

Which brings us back to the lawyers, the suits and other governments. Ignoring for the moment the fact that ICANN's understatement was of course defined by business interests -- and there are occasional, unpleasant stories about the mafia-like connection between ICANN and Network Solutions, the registrar of the original birth -- the lawyers suddenly wanted to declare property rights on names. There were already cases of legal disputes between trademark and domain owners.

The lawyers had discovered the Internet and it annoyed them -- a lot. Such is their overpowering greed, hidden behind law. At this point the government really should have intervened. One could have said: let's create a new domain where trademark law applies. But because the government (ICANN) is itself comprised of lawyers, it didn't want to do this. And of course these lawyers wore neckties, which are known to restrict the flow of oxygen to the brain. Thus they had no imagination and couldn't understand why we would need an open space, or what a "parallel universe" is.

And because they were Americans, they of course preferred American trademark law, with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as the potential arbitrater (the plaintiff's choice), thereby giving the entire name heiarchy to other lawyers to devour.

This is not just annoying, this is a crime. A crime outright, as well as a crime against the nature of the internet as a public cultural domain. What the lawyers call "Intellectual Property" is, as every student of Latin knows, nothing more than theft from the public domain. And we, as netizens, have no desire to allow this theft to destroy the public domain and must, therefor, begin to address this issue proactively.

So everyone goes their own way and is networked together. Through this public space, through the collective subconscious, and through the Goddess of Conflict, of Discord, and Argument, Eris, rampaging between the lines. But before you misunderstand this as esoteric rhetoric, back to matters of government.

OK, I am now nominally a part of the government, starting sometime in November. I want to keep the public space free of commercial rules, to protect the free flow of information and give the bits space to roam freely. We want endless gardens of data, where it can be bloom, flourish and reproduce. So there you have the cultural aspects of my upcoming governmental policy.

Then there are also a couple of organizational questions, and because the centralized, hierarchical nature of governments invites abuse and poses an obstacle to progress, I hope to ensure everything runs as decentralized as possible, which means it must be transparent and open to the public eye. And the United States government, well, it should be more concerned with its own educational system instead of trying to rule over the internet's name space. Just look at the geographical understanding of ICANN, it speaks volumes.

The remaining tasks of this government consists of creating interconnected "parallel universes" of diverse, coexisting cultures, each with its own rules. Then almost everyone will be able to do whatever they like. Even the suits can have their own domains. They can then play their trademark law games (not standardized universally, but who cares), sue each other over differing interpretations of freedom of expression or just go up in smoke.

As long as they accept other cultures, it's fine. I will work hard to do so as well, so that this peaceful coexistence may work. Thus I have explained to you the government, which means I have explained to you that the future should, please, govern itself. Simply do whatever you like. I will do the same.

Trying to do a better job

[YKnot]

Government statement

Very well. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been asked to write a government statement. And after all I have been asked to do that by a newspaper which is said to be read in government circles.

So I am supposed to write a government statement. But I never liked governments. Not at all. You should thank my mother for her vigilance, without which I had, around the age of 11, joined the RAF. Granted, I was a little young.

But somehow I found the terrorists sympathetic. I had visited the the local police office and got myself a wanted poster. Finally pictures of some sympathetic people, whom, on top of that, the tie-wearers obviously disliked. Somehow my mother didn't think that was ok, a real wanted poster between pictures of pop-bands and the "Deutsche Welle". And it was gone. Even today I still resent this invasive event a little.

Somehow I may have grown up later. Critics claim exactly that hasn't happened. So after all, you will have to do the judging yourself. Anyways, I have been elected, into world government. What do you mean you don't believe that? That's of course why I am writing this government statement. Some governments just have to be explained. Or maybe let's say, some more, some less.
[Translator's note: "Regierungserklaerung" translates to "government statement", but has a second word-by-word meaning which translates to "government explanation".]

Presently, people's view of the world is being increasingly influenced by media content, which is accessible through electronic networks. The internet isn't just one of these networks, based on protocols, standards, addressing schemes and rules. First and foremost, it's a cultural area, where participants are by principle not determined to be either sender or receiver. That way net reality is made by the users.

ICANN regulates the assignment of names, numbers and the introduction of protocols and issues the applicable rules - the architecture of the net. Or in other words, the government.

Since I am supposed to explain the government to you, I probably have to to talk a little about the view of media in general which is prevalent in your culture group. The governing generation is predominantly one which grew up with the valve radio. Back then, when sender and receiver where easily distinguishable. This is called the one-way model. And that's over. Today, the net comprises an area of communication. This is called the network model. And everybody who plugs in can enter that area. Can look around, take something for himself, can put something into it. On the internet we call this gift culture. A small electronic paradise. Who just said social romanticism?

Funny things developed in there, while, in the network of networks, many different people in colorful exchange created a new global cultural space. Everything was available, because the planet is big, the aliens are among us and, well, lawyers were far away. Back then, they were busy passing laws against terrorists and creating gigantic constructs for security.

Today things have changed a little. At some point in time, everything outside was completely safe, but unfortunately also a little put in stone. And because not all liked being so confined, they created for themselves a new area of freedom. With no states, with no lawyers, just free flow of information, a few rough rules of conduct and apart from that, everybody just does what he wants. Rough consensus and running code.

You know, blowing up freshly cemented concrete prisons was ok somehow, but moving into the internet was the more thorough way. Thoughts are free after all. Granted, even some members of the internet culture were a little pressed by that free thought thing. Then money came into play, and if already borderless, then of course unlimited amounts of money.

Since I don't want to hurt anyone's religious feelings, least of all in a government statement, I will not talk about "eCommerce" or "eBusiness". Believe in what you want to believe. Belief is said to be able to move mountains after all.

But stop bothering us with your lawyers. Unfortunately, the business people have brought them with them, these pals who see a contractual activity in buying a pack of jellybabies and talk about the unobjectionable and natural, not even sexual, act of proliferation of bits in horrid terms like "pirate copies".

And who know, that the internet thing is just starting to really take off worldwide, want to declare intellectual property. And cry out loud when they realize that theft is committed, all day long, on every computer on this planet. And who naturally want to add filters, policemen, prisons and barricades against theft.

Ok, so the situation is there. And we, the inhabitants of the net, have to react. Some of us concentrate more on that unlimited money thing, others have precautiously rented spaceports, South Sea islands and servers in satellites, to be prepared for the coming confrontation.

Well, then there was this government thing. The net was essentially based just on a common language, which the computers use to talk to eachother, and an address space, so they could contact one another, but the U.S. government had been involved with the development of the language, the assignment of addresses and the creation of the namespace. And some day, when the governments of other countries and the generation of suits knew about the "Double-U Double-U Double-U", they of course also wanted a say. But this is really a separate and rather long story, even though it finally lead to ICANN being the corporate construct it is.

At this point and another I abbreviate a little.

This point: So now there is ICANN, it's a business founded by the U.S. government under Californian jurisdiction, not only do they regulate the assignment of names, numbers and implementation of protocols worldwide, they also - almost - operate the vital parts of the centralistic and hierarchical namespace. Almost, because the U.S. government prefers not to lose control over the core of it all, the root-zone file.

The other point: ICANN wanted to govern, but without admitting it. Attention had always been paid to be "just" a technical board, which "just" regulates technical issues and "just" creates the rules for assigning names and numbers. But it was no use. What happened is what always happens when central bodies are created, no matter if they handle things "representativly" or not: the era of greed began.

And that brings us back to the lawyers, the suits and the other governments. Aside from the fact that ICANN's understatement was of course also guided by business interests and not taking into account that there are some unpleasant stories about the mafia-like connection between ICANN and the first registrar - Network Solutions, lawyers suddenly wanted to declare right of ownership on names.
There were already some cases of legal disputes between trademark and domain owners.

The lawyers had discovered the internet and it annoyed them. Really annoyed them. Obtrusive greed, hidden behind laws. In a sense, the government should have intervened then. It could have said: Why not have a separate namespace where trademark law does not apply. But the government, ICANN, didn't want that. Because it is itself comprised of lawyers. And they wore ties, which are known to cut down on the brain's oxygen supply. And because of that, they did not have any imagination and didn't understand at all why a public space like that is needed or what a parallel universe is.

And because they were Americans, they of course preferred U.S. trademark law, designated WIPO to be the potential arbitration court (the plaintiff's choice) and thus gave way to the other lawyers taking hold of that namespace.

This is not just annoying, it's a crime. A crime against the nature of the internet, a crime against the internet as a cultural public domain. What is called "intellectual property" by the lawyers is - as every Latin student knows - simply theft from the public domain. And since we - the inhabitants of the net - don't feel like having the public domain destroyed by thiefs, we had to take some proactive steps.

Everybody goes their own way and all are on networked. Through the public space, the collective subconsciousness and the goddess of conflict, discord and dispute, Eris. Who rampaged between the lines. But before you misunderstand this as New Age talk, back to government business.

So, I am in the government now, nominally speaking, and de jure sometime in November. And i still will intend to keep the public domain free of commercial rules, to guard the free flow of information and to let the bits have their freedom. We want gardens of data all over, where they can grow, flourish and reproduce. Those are the cultural aspects of my upcoming government work.

Then of course, there are the organisational questions, and since governments, centralistic and hierarchical systems, are vulnerable to abuse and an obstacle to progress, I would like to let everything run as decentralized as possible, and on top of that, it has to become transparent. And the U.S. government, they should worry more about their education system instead of trying to control the namespace. Just look at the geographical understanding of ICANN; that tells a lot about them.

The rest of government work will probably be to create networked parallel universes through the coexistence of different cultures, each with rules of their own. And after that, everybody just does what they want. So, the suits will have their own space, too. They can play trademark law there (not standardized globally, but who cares), sue eachother over different views of freedom of expression or just dissolve into nothingness.

As long as they accept other cultures, that's all ok. I am really trying, too, honestly. To make the coexistence thing work.

So, I am now declaring the government to you, and that means that you are now supposed to govern yourselves. Just do whatever you want. That's what I am doing.

Re:Judge Kaplan

[Yardley]

You need to get yourself up to date, grasshopper. The trial ended a while ago.

Judge Kaplan (beyond all comprehension) did in fact decide that "linking to DeCSS is illegal".

--

Re:Is it just me...

[JabberWokky]

...or is he stark raving mad?

Could a European on Slashdot please tell us what the connotation of Eris is over there?

You see, here in America, it's an underground "art" style movement (ghod, it's difficult to describe) that is described in the free tract Principia Discordia and the Illumnati Trilogy has led to things like the The Church of the SubGenius. Even new agers seldom touch Eris due to her modern links to the wierd.

Serious Freak. I'm curious if he's expressing a bit of his inner freak nature, or if it has a different connotation in Europe.

--
Evan