<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM,
Ian Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE:
12pt">
<div>yes, the concept of no government involvement is
nonsense. The Public Knowledge response (or draft
response, it may have changed) included the following. Not
that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some relevant
points about the language.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>“ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill
may</div>
<div>intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition
policy, law enforcement and</div>
<div>cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national
policy formulated by governments</div>
<div>with input from civil society, business and the
technical community. For example, the</div>
<div>United States has by law protected the privacy of
children online through Child Online</div>
<div>Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years.
Although we opposed the ITU</div>
<div>resolution to require countries to limit spam, the
United States protects its citizens from</div>
<div>spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), the Federal</div>
<div>Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of
Justice and numerous other</div>
<div>federal and state agencies have long played a critical
role in protecting consumers and</div>
<div>promoting competition and their existing statutes.</div>
<div>We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than
being understood as simply a resolution</div>
<div>directed specifically against the efforts to expand the
jurisdiction of the ITU, these</div>
<div>important and long-standing government policies will be
undermined. Our opposition to</div>
<div>ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance
consumer protection and free</div>
<div>expression is not because we see no role for government
in protecting consumers or</div>
<div>promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters
are best decided here at home,</div>
<div>by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by
a government constrained by</div>
<div>the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing
cybersecurity or law</div>
<div>enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely
appropriate for Congress or other</div>
<div>federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to
the Constitutional limitations of due</div>
<div>process and free expression.”</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Public Knowledge's draft letter is most instructive of what has
really been happening in the global IG space. How the term
'government control' has been deviously used to further entrench
hegemonies, and a neoliberal paradigm. A paradigm of complete non
regulation of the emerging 'communication realm, put forward more
appealingly as 'an Internet free from governmental control', was
the name of the game at WCIT. Here the front of 'protecting
Internet freedoms' was employed to cover the real geo-economic
intentions of using the Internet as the new pillar of global
domination by US and its allies. We raised this issue through an
oped in a top Indian daily ' <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece">Hyping
one threat to hide another</a>'. <br>
<br>
The chickens have now come home to roost, as we had predicted in
the mentioned op-ed. Excuse me to quote it, I simply cant resist
the temptation . <br>
<br>
<blockquote>"What is happening at the ITU today, in good measure,
is this game of freeing our communication realm from all public
interest regulation. As mentioned, it is about a new paradigm of
‘complete non-regulation.’ And once the victory is achieved at
the ITU, whereby the Internet and other IP networks, which would
soon be the basis of all communication infrastructure, are
considered out of any kind of regulatory oversight, the game
will then be replayed at the national level, citing ‘global
norms.’ "<br>
</blockquote>
US civil society was most active seeking that Internet - and with
it, really, all future communication systems - should 'completely'
stay out of ITU's realm. (Just opposing China/ Russia proposals of
'national Internet segement' and national control of CIRs etc is a
completely different matter. What was opposed was even references
to Internet related universal service obligations, net neutrlaity
and such things.) What was even more problematic was that civil
society from most developing countries also joined the (apparently
well- resourced) chorus. And now when this game of de-regulation
of communicative realm plays out in our respective national
domains, do give a thought to whether the manner in which the WCIT
game got played was the right thing to do for progressive
causes... There is yet opportunity to re-look at what is being
done to our futures, especially those of the marginalised people,
in the name of 'Internet freedoms' and multistakeholderism. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:EE796AE9A5FF43279790844911092B2F@Toshiba"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE:
12pt">
<div> </div>
<div>Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the
language for this and similar reasons.</div>
<div style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline;
FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small;
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="jeremy@ciroap.org"
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">Jeremy Malcolm</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> [governance] US House Bill to
Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding
Internet Governance</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline;
FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small;
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<div>It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or
maybe only in passing) that there is a bill on Internet
governance being debated in the Energy & Commerce
Committee of the US House of Representatives at the
moment. There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical
support for it from politicians of all sides (there is
no hidden intellectual property "gotcha"), but
unfortunately its premises are fundamentally flawed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance">http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one
on "Policy regarding Internet governance", which flows
from the findings. The latter simply states:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"It is the policy of the United States to promote a
global Internet free from government control and to
preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder
model that governs the Internet."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to
promote a global Internet free from government control,
only free from the control of other governments besides
itself. And note that US policy is only to "preserve
and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder
model, which continues the fiction that the
multistakeholder institutions that we have now are
adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the breadth
of Internet governance topics that they cover.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, you can argue for more beneficial
interpretations by defining "control" and
"multistakeholder model" expansively, but even so this
bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the
US and other countries, which is not going to be helpful
in reaching compromise on the evolution of Internet
governance arrangements this year...</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none;
TEXT-INDENT: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal; FONT:
medium helvetica; WORD-WRAP: break-word;
WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0);
WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><span
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE:
separate" class="Apple-style-span">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"><span style="WIDOWS: 2;
TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px;
BORDER-SPACING: 0px; LETTER-SPACING: normal;
BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium
helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2;
COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none"
class="Apple-style-span">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><span
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; WIDOWS: 2;
TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-VARIANT:
normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-INDENT:
0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px; LETTER-SPACING:
normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate;
FONT-FAMILY: helvetica; WHITE-SPACE:
normal; ORPHANS: 2; FONT-WEIGHT: normal;
WORD-SPACING: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none"
class="Apple-style-span">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><span
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; WIDOWS: 2;
TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT-VARIANT:
normal; FONT-STYLE: normal;
TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-SPACING: 0px;
LETTER-SPACING: normal;
BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate;
FONT-FAMILY: helvetica; WHITE-SPACE:
normal; ORPHANS: 2; FONT-WEIGHT:
normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect:
none" class="Apple-style-span">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"><span
style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM:
none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px;
BORDER-SPACING: 0px;
LETTER-SPACING: normal;
BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT:
medium helvetica; WHITE-SPACE:
normal; ORPHANS: 2; COLOR:
rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect:
none" class="Apple-style-span">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"><span
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal;
WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM:
none; FONT-VARIANT: normal;
FONT-STYLE: normal;
TEXT-INDENT: 0px;
BORDER-SPACING: 0px;
LETTER-SPACING: normal;
BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate;
FONT-FAMILY: helvetica;
WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS:
2; FONT-WEIGHT: normal;
WORD-SPACING: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust:
auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect:
none" class="Apple-style-span">
<div style="WORD-WRAP:
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break:
after-white-space"><span
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:
rgb(255,255,255)">-- </span><br
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:
rgb(255,255,255)">
<p style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:
rgb(255,255,255);
FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><b>Dr
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International
| the global campaigning
voice for consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific
and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan
Abang Haji Openg, TTDI,
60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<p style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">WCRD
2013 – Consumer Justice
Now! | Consumer Protection
Map: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main">https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main</a>
| #wcrd2013</p>
<p style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:
rgb(255,255,255);
FONT-SIZE: 9pt">@Consumers_Int
| <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:
rgb(255,255,255); COLOR:
rgb(153,153,153);
FONT-SIZE: 8pt">Read our <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email
confidentiality notice</a>.
Don't print this email
unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<hr>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>