<!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 Thursday 31 May 2012 10:45 AM, Jac sm Kee wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org" type="cite">Snip<br>
<pre wrap="">
i've also been reading the conversations around EC and democratization
of IG on this list with interest. and the thing that bugs me about
looking at democratization starting from national democratic processes
is that the potential of the internet to facilitate democratic
participation and deliberations is precisely because it is currently
still somewhat slippery from complete state control, as opposed to
e.g. broadcasting media and books and streets. so i am reluctant to
say that states should ahve oversight and negotiate it from there.
although i understand that global governance and oversight is
different from national, but when states become the highest hierarchy
of authority, then my point of entry for engagement as civ soc would
be from that level. it's not something i am optimistic about..
anyway, 2 cents,
jac
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jac, your misgivings about how civ soc will be able to influence things
are understandable. But it is not that with turning of a switch the
regulatory order will shift from the national to the global level. In
making the demands for democratising global IG what is expected is
rather a complex interplay of global and national level of politics -
with certain degrees of government-ish authorities and corresponding
role and participative-ness of civ soc - as is appropriate to the
complex global-national nature of the Internet. There is no alternative
to such a layered national-global system because none of the other
options is acceptable, which I think are as below.<br>
<br>
1) Facebook, and similar global social utilities, get completely
territorialised, serving each country a version that is specific to the
laws and customs of that country <br>
<br>
2) We go by a global least denominator for the whole world (which as
you argue is not acceptable)<br>
<br>
3) we leave things to private regulation, the will of the monopoly
companies almost entirely determined by maximum profit motive <br>
<br>
In default, to me, our best political option is to seek an appropriate
national-global political system for the Internet, and keep struggling
for better and better avenues for civil society participation, while
warding off possible attempts at using the same avenues for even
greater corporate influence on Internet related policies. <br>
<br>
As for global political systems necessarily producing lowest
denominator outcome, this is not true. Also such an argument can be
used against any political system and thus in its essence is simply an
'anti-political' argument. However, ad hoc, one-off, arrangements and
agreements among governments are more likely to produce such lowest
denomination like bad results. More open, insitutionalised political
processes generally tend to produce better results, and that is what is
being sought in our call for democratising global IG.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
What FB is doing will potentially impact the way that younger
generations
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">will perceive liberty (including body expression and sexual
liberty) and morality. And, in my country, FB is actually being
more conservative than traditional media, endangering the
progress we made on recent decades when it comes to body
expression women's rights and sexual rights.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is it facebook that is being conservative? Afterall, they are
merely trying to comply with the laws of the land. I think that
if people have an issue, they should take it up with their
respective Parliaments and have it debated. These comments are
restricted to the "Freedom of Expression" but when it comes to
"Privacy" and "misuse" of information and data - I have different
views.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I do not feel comfortable to place this sort of decision on FB's
hands, with no chance of democratic debate, with no chance to
scrutinize these policies they impinge on users.
These are good discussions and Turkey and Thailand and the US
make
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">fascinating studies.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Best, Marília
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom of
expression,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Why would one who uses FB think they can express themselves
outside of the FB ToS/AUP?
are being
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">restricted by the same platforms that are praised and known
for
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">enabling
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">their exercise; b) there is a privatization of Internet
regulation,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">subtle,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">based on contracts (terms of use)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Would you argue that Internet companies have NO ToS?
, but yet, dangerous; c) I see no adequate
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">forum where we should take this issue to be analized in a
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">participatory and
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">balanced way in the global arena.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Nor should there be IMHO.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates
where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon
Postel
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell:
+679 998 2851
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
-- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio
Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio
de Janeiro - Brazil
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
- --
Jac sm Kee
Women's Rights Policy Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a> | erotics.apc.org | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.takebackthetech.net">www.takebackthetech.net</a>
Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://enigmail.mozdev.org/">http://enigmail.mozdev.org/</a>
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPxv6IAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmHCoH/2uwhPDET81D4QPUCLs0VAxS
IiJOShAJQmyCJUc6M6ghZl/pmpUdgBF0y0kB++DCJkU/sZrboTz4VGsffXwSBo3a
4bbwMHZcNQLhwRccM9780M0NHCJ4IVgF2gpJxmrfBcREiLp/w4ET4azQ1KTDeGnD
79vDfVg3ZAqTortPV46UgVzHyy025q2DDzMBqhBoup6MUFK3E6ItM7oOGnmjBYaJ
esbVXxdSrhnGDfWzCfOvSF9UJ1sjE8pftvTjAP7xAfEHGQvLCiWARA5OWxjBth+h
LfumxmmtrDuC3Tp2p1o3AYpR19PaD3DRRqOalwZ12+39SEYQlRyiAQHxDA9YG5Y=
=HB8Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>