<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Guru गुरु <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Guru@itforchange.net" target="_blank">Guru@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Lee,<br>
<br>
The issue of a secret / proprietary search algorithm that may have
commercial and political implications contra to public interest, is
clearly out of the remit of 'technical management of day to day
issues', which a body like ICANN needs to concern itself with. I
never mentioned ICANN at all in my mails for that reason. Issues
such as this (or illegal sharing of private information by Vodafone
with the spy agency of the UK Government, or that of evasion of tax
by Internet businesses) would come under the remit of the 'global
public policy' making which is beyond the remit of ICANN.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Not to conflate issues, but ICANN does have remit re: searchable WHOS. Of course, they don't oversee search in general, but that doesn't mean that it needs an "overseer" beyond what Lee pointed out from competition authorities.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I would suggest that ALL search engines have "commercial and political implications" that may align with "the public interest" or may align with private interests.</div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
What I was seeking was a process of global norms building</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>We have global norms, e.g., anyone can set up their own search facility.</div><div><br></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">, and if
found necessary, setting up of global policy frameworks,
recognising the extraordinary public interest nature of the search
service, (search being the key factor organising the worlds
information/knowledge for all of us).</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So ALL search engines would be regulated under such a policy framework?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> There are parallels that we
can take note of; for instance, in the case of medicines - the
composition of medicines may be sought to be protected by
pharmaceutical companies as their trade secret, but this is not
allowed, it is mandatory to provide the complete details of the
composition on the packaging itself; while on the other hand, such a
standard may not apply to Coke (as that is not considered to be of
such high public interest).<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For consumer safety BOTH Coke and drug makers have to list ingredients, neither has to tell the steps in the processes of manufacturing AFAIK.</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, search isn't something we ingest, like drugs or coke.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Existing UN bodies do take responsibility for developing global
norms, policy frameworks## / standards of various kinds, WHO for
drugs, UNESCO for education and cultural goods. Often norms
building can go into treaty making processes, such as UNESCO's
treaty on cultural goods, whereby cultural goods are considered of
special public interest and need not fall into normal world trade
regulatory frameworks. As per this treaty, for instance, countries
can have quotas on the number of Hollywood films that are allowed to
be imported in a year. Similar global norms building, and treaties
are required</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>desired by a very few, not required.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> to ensure that the current situation where large US
based IT trans-nationals are compromising public interest for their
commercial gains (and political aims of the USG) does not persist.
(The extra-ordinary hypocrisy in their coming together at WCIT to
thwart the possibilities of democratisation of the Internet is what
I alluded to in my recent post).<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The above assumes that democratisation of the Internet was what was attempted at WCIT, this is asserting a fact not in evidence.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
The Tunis Agenda envisaged that some of these complex issues would
be dealt with under the 'enhanced co-operation' processes, which
unfortunately has been stone-walled by those who have vested
interests in the status quo. 'Multi-Stakeholderism' has
spectacularly failed to make even the smallest progress in promoting
such public interest</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Your vision of enhanced cooperation is different than mine....is not what is going on in Sao Paolo "enhanced cooperation" as well?</div>
<div><br></div><div>MSism has given us the Internet that we have today. I think that is a SPECTACULAR success in promoting public interests.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">, since it allows the powerful to stalemate any
move in that direction. Many of us know how just having a workshop
at the IGF on enhanced cooperation was so difficult.<br>
<br>
The current situation, as I pointed out is untenable, it privileges
a powerful (and criminal as per Snowden) minority. Global civil
society IG space like the IGC must work for the development of norms
that promote the public interest and counter this power.<br>
<br>
As a starting point, I would like to call for an agreement on the
list</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I think you have already had your answer in the negative.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</div></div>