Am 10.05.2012 18:40, schrieb Lee Alley:

...

Your model is being tested in Somalia. ;-) </lurkmode> Also depends on which bit of Somalia you mean ;-) http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/06/aid-and-somaliland

+1 for this discussion! Fascinating and informative! Thanks :-)

I do share the general scepticism against government regulators. It makes a difference if you argue markets are contestable by virtue (which is true to a certain degree) to prevent regulation or enact policies so that markets ought to become contestable. In the 1990ths cyberlibertarianism was widespread, as we had to struggle with the old state telecom monopolies, analog governments and crypto export regulations or even the remains of central planning. After 911 the state security paradigm set the agenda where civil society took the pro-freedom narrative. In the past five years old postponed debates reemerged that found new commercial allies (blocking, child porn, filtering, trade funnel). The surveillance and privacy debate of the 1980ths onwards was mostly focussed on state interest in our individual data, today companies harvest data (made available to the state). In the Arab spring the targets are geriatric regimes and a rebellious youth. The main question for me is how to get "good governance" in a field characterized by Schumpeterian competition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction How to make governance side with the challengers, not the old bulls. For instance 10 years ago Google was still weak in lobbying. How do we avoid that regulators shoot in the cradle of emerging technology firms, add risks and strangulate emerging models? The toolset of open market policies (pro-competition, pro-openstandards, pro unlicensed spectrum, pro-open internet..) has insufficient support in multistakeholder fora. Patent regimes slow down the transition because challengers do not have large portfolios. I originate from a city that was mostly dependend on the typewriter industry. All the companies a domestic legislator would have consulted back then about the future of word processing are now gone. When governments do not know what the dominant players of tomorrow would be it still makes sense to be first. Being first implies that you naturally would regulate against the current dominant business players to path the way for the challengers. Best, Andri _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE