<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif"><br>
The document from top global/ US digital </font>companies
(enclosed for ready ref.) calling for more predictable policy and
legal frameworks for the emerging global digital economy is a rather
good one in many ways.<br>
<br>
First of all, it rightly refrains from mixing social and human
rights issues with straight forward business and trade issues. It
behoves us, the human rights oriented civil society, also not to try
to push human rights (like FoE) as a trade/ business issue. They are
not that at all. <br>
<br>
Free digital trade over the internet, which is what this document
solely seeks, has no more a positive relationship with human rights
(even of FoE and communication rights variety) than free trade
(including of basic necessities related stuff like food grain) has a
positive relationship with alleviating poverty and hunger. The
number of instances and places where global free trade could
actually be held responsible for causing poverty and hunger is
legend. (For instance, see Clinton's apology on Haiti at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031329/bill-clinton-apologizes-haiti-effects-free-trade">http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031329/bill-clinton-apologizes-haiti-effects-free-trade</a>
).<br>
<br>
The framers of this document have done us a great favour in sticking
to what they are really talking about, and not use the fig leaf of
human rights and democracy. Lets not now beseech them to undo this
good thing. Lets focus on what and how human rights are in reality,
and how most human rights groups see it. Human rights precede a
trade regime, they dont follow from it. And the distinction is
dangerous to lose sight of. <br>
<br>
The second important point of the document is that it is basically
seeking some kind of formalising of a new global order of global
policies and laws for the emerging digital economy. The objective of
the document is stated as: Modernize international rules and
practices governing cross‐border flows of data and information
technologies.<br>
<br>
Now that even business has asked for a new set of global rules for
the emerging global society (after OECD, EU, US gov etc having asked
for some such things in their policy pronouncements over the last
year), it is perhaps time that global civil society, and IGC, may
also agree that such new global policies and rules are needed
(McTim, I again am not speaking of CIRs related issues). The
document says clearly that <br>
<blockquote>"The movement of electronic information across borders
is critical to businesses around the world, but the international
rules governing flows of digital goods, services, data and
infrastructure are incomplete........... Governments should work
to resolve emerging legal and policy issues raised by cross‐border
data flows."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In this respect, what is perhaps most interesting and also
objectionable about the document is how these global digital corps
are blatantly calling for the US to take up the central rule in
developing the new global policy paradigm (you see, it is much more
about control over ICANN and IANA ). The document is full of
exhortations like<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"In response, the United States should drive the development and adoption of transparent and high‐quality international rules, norms and best practices on cross-border flows of digital data and technologies....."<br>
<br>
"The U.S. Government should seek international commitments on several key objectives, including......"<br>
<br>
"In addition, the U.S.
Government should solicit ideas and begin to develop a plurilateral framework to set a new global gold‐standard....."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The document ends with the rather stern warning, "America’s trading
partners should understand that if they do not abide by their
international obligations, there will be consequences.".<br>
<br>
This is the new global digital regime that the global/ US digital
industry has in mind. US, maybe with some help from other developed
countries, as the main driver of regime shaping, and then its
enforcer too. There is no reason provided here why US rather the UN,
as the comity of all nations, should take the lead/central role in
shaping and enforcing this new global regime. One can though easily
surmise the reason. <br>
<br>
Now, we of the global civil society have to make up our mind on
this. Unfortunately, most people in the IG related civil society
still live in a strong denial of this emerging global reality. It is
surprising how many among the IG civil society themselves seem to
have little problem with US taking the leading and defining role in
shaping and enforcing this new emerging regime, as it evidently is.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
On Sunday 06 November 2011 05:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v8=-it4ZnWYO6zUYkND-xV_HuoGOn+dEcbyUfw4_Z5J1w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Nick,
Thank you for your explanation, and your point is well taken. I just
want to leave two questions open (I don't think we can, nor do we need
to, solve them here.)
I know which side I am NOT on. But phrases such as "open Internet" or
"net neutrality" are not simple and transparent things. They are
tropes that at times make strange bedfellows, and sometimes might even
need to be dissected before they themselves realize how strange. For
all those who want "open Internet," how open do they want it to be?
That's where it might get a little complicated.
You say "...the Internet as we know it is under threat from many
quarters" and I might think, Internet has ever since been under threat
from ALL quarters. The threats just have different faces. But that's
probably another debate.
Best,
Mawaki
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Paul Lehto <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com"><lehto.paul@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nashton@consensus.pro"><nashton@consensus.pro></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Dear Matthias and Mawaki:
I think we all recognise that the Internet as we know it is under threat
from many quarters; those of us who want to keep it open and free need to
focus on what we have in common rather than on differences in how the
message is put by different stakeholders.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think the truth for all humans is that we must address the audience in the
language and style that is most persuasive and relevant for them. If a
teenager has a holiday in a foreign country, and is called upon to explain
it, they will use different details and emphases in talking of the same
event with their best friend, a stranger, a sibling, their parents and their
grandparents. Often the entire package (and more) constitutes the whole
truth, but the point is that we choose different arguments and facts to
emphasize with different parties.
So yes, economic arguments may be the only ones that certain parties find
most persuasive, but most wise companies will give human rights at least
some weight even if it is clearly not very important to them. I'm not sure
Nick is saying what I'm about to criticize: but a one size fits all
approach, using only the "common arguments" so we can all be on message is
not particularly effective, nor human. Sometimes we are forced to do that,
but only if a group of humans are so closely identified with each other that
it is fair to attribute the comments of person A to the comments of person
B. In such cases, the persons in that kind of group will need to be "on
message" saying about the same things all the time.
But the whole reason for secret diplomacy and off-record discussions when
they are *occasionally* appropriate (and often abused) is for the very
reason that it is so hard to say the same thing all the time and convince
enough partners to join a majority, or a super-majority, or a consensus.
(Whichever applies)
Paul Lehto, J.D.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Regards, Nick
PS: anything I ever say here is entirely personal and unrelated to my
professional life.
On 5 Nov 2011, at 15:23, Mawaki Chango wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I do not see Facebook among the endorsers! Talking about cross-border
data flows in this day and age, and the nb. 1 online social networking
company is missing? Perhaps if you throw in there a single positive
mention of human rights you may end up with even less endorsers. Is
this (intended to be) anything more than a coalition of companies
petitioning their government to secure predictable --and friendly,
while at it-- environment for their business to thrive worldwide?
Best,
Mawaki
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Matthias C. Kettemann
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at"><matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's actually quite disappointing that the six-page principles
outlining
"priorities for the business community" do not contain a single
reference to
"human rights".
When the document refers to the need of establishing "international
commitments" on, inter alia, "expressly prohibit[ing] restrictions on
legitimate cross‐border information flows", the narrow focus becomes
very
much apparent. These commitments already largely exist: they are called
human rights.
Clearly, a business case can be (also) made for human rights diplomacy.
Relying on existing human rights law and calling states to account for
violations of information and communication freedoms is the shared
responsiblity of all stakeholders, including companies.
The business community has shown that it is sometimes not afraid to
call
human rights by their name, as does for example the Global Network
Initiative.
Kind regards
Matthias
Am 05.11.2011 13:56, schrieb McTim:
Advancing the free flow of information
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 12:28 PM ET
Posted by Winter Casey, Senior Policy Analyst, Google
The global economy relies on the free flow of information more than
ever
before. Companies large and small can use the Internet to reach new
markets,
which contributes to economic growth, job creation, and increased trade
around the world.
But as companies and individuals are transmitting more information
online,
some governments are seeking to impose limits on the free flow of
information. More than 40 governments now block or restrict information
and
data available on the Internet.
Last year, we released a white paper demonstrating that governments
which
block the free flow of information on the Internet are also blocking
trade
and economic growth. For example, when companies can’t confidentially
and
confidently transmit the files and information that are necessary to
keep
their business running, their ability to export goods and services is
hurt.
The thesis is simple: when countries support the free flow of
information,
they will see more economic growth.
That’s why we joined companies like Citi, Microsoft, IBM, GE and others
to
endorse a new set of principles endorsing the free flow of information
across borders. The principles, written under the leadership of the
National
Foreign Trade Council, outline several priorities for the U.S. business
community which will promote transparent, fair, and secure cross-border
data
flows.
Individuals and businesses will benefit from a more consistent and
transparent framework for the treatment of cross-border flows of goods,
services and information. We look forward to continued work with
governments
and industry to advance the free flow of information online.
------------------
Principles are here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nftc.org/default/Innovation/PromotingCrossBorderDataFlowsNFTC.pdf">http://www.nftc.org/default/Innovation/PromotingCrossBorderDataFlowsNFTC.pdf</a>
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route
indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>
906-204-4026 (cell)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>