<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16430">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; COLOR: #333333; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; COLOR: #333333; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; COLOR: #333333; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: #333333; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
LI.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: #333333; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
DIV.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: #333333; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
SPAN.BalloonTextChar {
FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; COLOR: #333333; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text"; mso-style-name: "Balloon Text Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; COLOR: #1f497d; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US bgColor=white vLink=purple link=blue>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Milton,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>I
think there are two issues that militate against a primitive market approach as
you are articulating for this context/these examples. The first is that
since these are Internet based services/products they are by their nature both
of every jurisdiction and of no jurisdiction. For reasons various folks have
already mentioned the matter of what jurisdiction might have
regulatory/taxation authority is most definitely not a simple one as it
would be in the case of a physical product--and as is becoming quite
evident now is as requiring of a solution/response as global as the
services/products to which they would be applied.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The
second issue reinforces the first which is that for a variety of reasons for
Internet based services/products such as those offered by Google quantity has in
fact become quality. The effeciencies and additional
effectivenesses/functionalities of these services/products have become so
successful that they have become constituative of a number of the
conditions for participation in daily life in the 21st century. The
absence of these services/products (with no reasonable alternatives available)
denies those without these "capabilities" the means to participate in daily
life as they might reasonably have expectations and to which they have a
natural right (life, liberty... peace, order.. etc.etc.-take your
pick)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>That
certain products/services in this time have come to achieve this status was
certainly not the intent of the providers. They were, as you indicated
below simply offering a product/service like thousands of
other industries. That they have been so successful with
their products/services that they have become a codition of modern life
while not something they wished for should be evident from the tale of the
individual attempting to deal with Google among other similar such
stories.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Combine both of these and what you have are Internet based
services/products which are too big (necessary) to be allowed to fail (or be at
the whim of any single company) but yet for which there is no evident
jurisdiction within which they or the product/service can be held
account.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>That
is the challenge--and tossing free market primitivism at it isn't going to make
it go away.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=053435301-24072011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Mike</FONT> </SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
governance@lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Milton L Mueller<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:24
AM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; parminder<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human
Rights?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Let’s look
at the details of the case. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Taipei
said it wanted Android platform users to comply with local regulations
regarding trial periods and refunds. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Google
said, if you force us to do that, we will withdraw Android market service from
Taipei. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">To me,
that seems fair enough. An agreement to disagree; a failure to transact. That
should be the end of the story. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Those who
are complaining about this result seem to be either disconnected from economic
reality or, at worst, hypocritical believers in having your cake and eating
it, too. Apparently, they want to tell Google: you CANNOT offer services here
on terms that you find necessary to meet your needs as a supplier, but if you
withdraw service we will whine about it and imply that you should be forced to
offer service in a locality you do not want to do business in.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">There is a
very simple form of governance at work here, it’s called rational mutual
adjustments to local circumstances. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">The Taipei
government says, “we will impose regulations on what you do.” Google says, in
response, “well, those regulations are too costly to us, we shall choose not
to do business there.” This kind of choice occurs in thousands of different
industries in thousands of different ways. You don’t want to live in a world
in which that kind of adjustment is not possible. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">This
process of choice provides checks and balances on both players. If Google is
too unreasonable in its unwillingness to comply with local consumer
regulations, it will be barred from many markets and lose out to others. If
Taipei is too unreasonable in its demands on external businesses, it will only
prevent its citizens from getting access to many valuable products and
services. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Please
tell me what is a better alternative?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Should a
local government have the authority to tell a supplier based in another
country that it MUST offer its services in its locality, under terms and
conditions it does not find profitable or sustainable? Aside from being
impractical, it sounds self-evidently crazy to me, but if it doesn’t seem so
to you consider what would happen if that kind of obligation were established.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">So,
there’s a company in Hong Kong offering 1 Gb broadband at US$20/month. I’d
like the Syracuse city govt to tell them they HAVE TO offer it to my home.
Never mind the fact that cost conditions in Syracuse, with US-style suburban
homes spaced hundreds of feet apart aren’t quite the same as HK high rises,
where one fiber can serve thousands of small apartments. I want my 1 Gb
broadband for $20, and I bet 80-90% of other Syracusans do too.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">OK, so
that involves non-transportable physical infrastructure, rather than virtual
services, so maybe you think it’s not a valid example. So let’s go with
local/national regulation involving a potentially global, virtual service.
Let’s say the national government of China says to Google, “we think you have
the best search engine so we want it here, but we want it to comply with our
censorship regime. So you MUST offer Google search here, but all your servers
serving the china market MUST be in the country, all your Gmail accounts MUST
provide backdoor access to the public security bureau, and all search results
MUST implement our censorship by allowing our censors direct access to your
results display process.” Under my preferred regime, Google has the right to
say, “sorry, no deal.” In the Parmindered world, what happens? They MUST go
in? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">So here is
a more direct answer to this question:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Do Milton
and others who seemed to have great reservation about appropriateness of
Taipie city government's regulatory competence in that case still think, after
reading about the case of unilateral withdrawal of google service, still think
that users of these services should have no legal recourse with accountable
public governance entity?</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">[Milton L
Mueller] <o:p></o:p></SPAN></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">First,
they do have recourse. They can insist that their government apply local
regulations. This may drive the multinationals out altogether. Or they can get
their local government to avoid applying those local regulations, or to adjust
them, in order to gain access to the services. There are two parties at
interest here. There is no requirement to transact at all if either’s needs
are not met. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR><BR>If local or national
governments should *not* be the entity that people should be able to turn to,
and these governments should *not* have the regulatory competence, who
should?</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">[Milton L
Mueller] <o:p></o:p></SPAN></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">As usual,
you over-dichotomize and -polarize the options. Our real disagreement is on
the nature and scope of the regulations. You seem to think that any demand
placed on a supplier by a consumer or a government is de facto legitimate and
right. I am saying that there are constraints. Suppliers of services cannot be
taken for granted as a natural resource, just sitting there waiting to be
milked. People produce Internet services, and the people who produce them have
legitimate incentives and needs that have to be met, otherwise they will
withdraw their services from the market (or die a slow death in the market).
Governments that assert controls and regulations in a globalized economy have
to face the fact that unfair or overly burdensome regulations will lead
private actors to withdraw from their market. Full stop. Likewise,
corporations who do things that lots of locally responsive governments can’t
allow them to do will be barred from many local markets, limiting their growth
and profit. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">What’s
wrong with that exchange? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 5.25pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 5.25pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">--MM</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in">
<P
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>