<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:05 PM, William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi Sala<div><br></div><div>This is indeed an interesting development. During the WSIS and thereafter, WTO staff and other trade people were rather equivocal when some of us argued that since the multilateral trade regimes apply to Internet commerce they constitute a form of global Internet governance. They didn't want trade policy issues drawn into the IG space, inter alia because like the IPR people involved in WIPO & WTO they preferred to keep these solely within their institutional space. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Yes I thought that it was an interesting evolution. What is equally interesting is that at the end of the day trade positions and interests exist to benefit countries and governments are finding that they have to reconsider certain positions when global corporates/multinationals can easily choose to be established in jurisdictions that not only give optimum return but where they can freely carry out their respective business objectives. What to me is exciting about the evolution is how this global borderless thing called the internet and with companies like Google that has caches and presence all over the world, they would demand for the free flow of their services without hinderance, ie. removal of barriers.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">To me this is where it gets interesting and I think in months to come La Rue's Report as Special Rapporteur on Access will be analysed in a different light. It will most certainly be interesting to see economic rights and political rights interplay and how the balance is achieved.</font></div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> But over the past couple years a growing number of trade analysts have begun to view FOE restrictions as trade restrictions, and Google & industry groups like the Computer & Communications Industry Association have picked up and pressed the argument. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">One of the goals of the Taskforce on Internet Telecom Infrastructure and Services (ITIS) which is part of the International Chamber of Commerce is to "</font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Promote liberalization of trade in telecommunications and information technology markets with the World Trade Organization (WTO), with other international organizations and with national authorities.<span> " See: </span></font></span><a href="http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id9260/index.html">http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id9260/index.html</a></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>This might present a little bit of a conundrum for folks who are both proponents of FOE and opponents of the WTO system…</div>
</div></blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Interesting indeed :)</font> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br></div><div>China's restrictions on foreign-based websites & related operations may well be a violation of the GATS if its schedule of commitments doesn't carve them out under the relevant modes of supply like via networks or commercial presence. China could try to argue that the restrictions are legal under the General Exceptions escape clause that allows measures necessary "to protect public morals or to maintain public order," but that works only if it can be shown that the services pose a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and the measures are nondiscriminatory and not a disguised restriction on trade in services. If this goes to a dispute settlement panel, an important legal precedent, potentially backed by the option of trade sanctions, could ensue. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Whether anyone would want to take the risk of acting on that option, and whether it'd even prove necessary, are other questions. </div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> A couple years ago the Appellate Body ruled against China in a dispute with the US over the importation of material publications and audiovisual products, finding that China's actions violated its accession agreement, the GATT, and the GATS, and specifically said that China had failed to show its actions were necessary to protect public morals. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Interesting.</font> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div> I don't recall that this gave rise to sanctions though—I think they undertook some relaxation of restrictions in their distribution system. Who knows if that could be a precedent…</div></div></blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">And time will certainly tell :)</font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><br><br><div><div>
</div>
<br><div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div>On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div>Dear All,</div><div><br></div>
<div>I read with interest the following:</div><div><br></div><div><h1 style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:12px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:70px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;font-family:'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif;font-size:26px;line-height:15px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)">
US requests China website censoring details</h1></div><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429" target="_blank">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429</a><br clear="all">
<div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div><br></div><div>Tweeter: @SalanietaT</div><div><a>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</a></div><div>Cell: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a></div>
<div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br>
</span></font></div><br></div></div>
____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div><br></div><div>Tweeter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div>
<div>Cell: +679 998 2851</div><div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div><br>