<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Sunday 20 May 2012 06:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:A539F21F-F149-4DF1-B906-459A09ED69DC@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 19 May 2012, at 23:39, Guru गुरु wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think you have begun a useful thread of thought - the need for global regulation of business.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I did not go that far.
I was looking for what could be done at a global level to help avoid local monopolies in information services.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
the monopolies are not local, they are global. If they were local, yes
local competition law is all that is needed. But they are not.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A539F21F-F149-4DF1-B906-459A09ED69DC@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I also spoke of global work to help produce local regulatory reform. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
As above, local regulatory reform are ineffective, esp if you are not
the US. The global monopolies are too strong, and local jurisdictions
weak in front of them. When Taipie asked Google to operate Android
Market as per local consumer law, Google simply withdrew Android Market
from Taipie. Increasingly, most jurisdictions cannot sustain withdrawal
of monopoly services which are becoming such a big part of daily social
existence of people. However, if such issues are taken up at some
appropriate global level, governments can pull together their
collective strength and can come up with guidelines and principles that
address such eventualities..... <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A539F21F-F149-4DF1-B906-459A09ED69DC@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I do not not advocate global regulation of business.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Two issues here . (1) The 'problem' is global, the problem makers being
global players with swift feet to move in and out of any jurisdiction. <br>
<br>
(2) People like you, and I say it because you have made this assertion
often, wish to be global citizens.<br>
<br>
In the circumstances, dislike of global rules and regulation (that
comes out of an emerging 'global social compact') is first of all quite
inexplicable, and, secondly, just another way of saying, I will let the
problem be. Because it cant be solved any other wise. (Same for
instance is true about regulating the global financial flow which has
caused, and keeps causing, economic havoc, and against which a good
part of Europe has started to revolt. )<br>
<br>
SNIP<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A539F21F-F149-4DF1-B906-459A09ED69DC@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yes, I would have them on a equal footing. Being on an equal footing does not allow for any stakeholder to control or veto. Unfortunately outside of perhaps the IETF, being on an equal footing is still a more a goal than a reality, </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
For the simple reason that larger public policy making has a very
different context than technical policy making. This is the reason, for
instance, any governance system excludes any party with conflict of
interest, which important norm of democracy and public life gets
over-ridden by your 'on equal footing' proposition. It is for this
reason, that unlike ICANN for instance, no national telecom regulatory
body will ever accept a telecom company rep to be its member. It is
simply unthinkable. The 'equal footing' formula upstages this basic
democratic principle, and this is why it is unacceptable. <br>
<br>
This is why I find problems with multi-stakeholderism when it
manifestly goes back on democratic principles. If you were advocating
more and more civil society participation, and newer and newer concrete
and plausible ways of such participation, we both would agree on almost
everything. Checking abuse of power by governments is one of the most
important jobs of civil society; but this is not to be achieved by
becoming vehicles of putting corporates into seats of even more power
than they have at present. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:A539F21F-F149-4DF1-B906-459A09ED69DC@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I beleive neither government regulation nor self regulation has really worked. Or could work.
So this is a good question, and the one I am asking, given there is a problem and given that one cannot trust governments or companies on their own to serve the public interest, how can we use this new multistakeholder model with all of the stakeholders on an equal footing to achieve the public interest.
avri
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>