<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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>
<br>
What I was seeking was a process of global norms building, 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). 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>
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 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>
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, 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, that the current situation of the search algorithm being a
secret is untenable. The practical issues raised by Adam, David and
others can then be explored for solutions, but can we agree first on
the proposition that Google search algorithm needs an audit to
ensure it is not commercially and politically harmful (as explained
many times by me).<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
Guru<br>
## You have worked on 'framework convention for the Internet' in the
past as well...recognising the complexity of public policy issues
relating to the Internet, far beyond what an ICANN can or ought to
do.<br>
<br>
On 03/17/2014 10:10 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> Hey Guru,<br>
> <br>
> As I have previously stated, competition policy is a purview
of <br>
> states, and at global level, organizations like the WTO; and
draft <br>
> treaties like the TPP, like it or not.<br>
> <br>
> ICANN can set its own - subsidiary - policies in that arena
but it<br>
> is far more likely the Chinese, Indian, French, EU, and US
relevant <br>
> government agencies will have oversight of Google search
effects on <br>
> market competition - and what a coincidence, all of them have
a <br>
> variety of competition policy inquiries into Google search
and other <br>
> practices going on right now.<br>
> <br>
> Of course Best Bits and IGC are free to weigh in on the
specifics in <br>
> each of those cases, and make recommendations for new global
public <br>
> policies, for the global Internet economy also in the
competition <br>
> policy arena broadly speaking.<br>
> <br>
> But, I am more than a little unclear, OK I am seriously
confused, if <br>
> you now are suggesting ICANN should weigh in and be a place
that can <br>
> set that level of competition policy. In a hypothetical
future <br>
> out-of-California state?<br>
> <br>
> I suggest we are confounding levels of political, and
regulatory <br>
> authority, if we are suggesting that ICANN should substitute,
or<br>
> even have a place at the table, with competition policy
matters<br>
> before the WTO, OECD, TPP, and Indian, Chinese, French, EU,
and US<br>
> governments - to just list the competition policy/regulatory
arenas I<br>
> am aware of where Google practices are in question, there
might be<br>
> more.<br>
> <br>
> To end on a positive/speculative note, if you are suggesting
a new <br>
> UDRP-like arrangement whereby ICANN provides/channels <br>
> multi-stakeholder input into say WTO/EU?/national competition
policy <br>
> inquiries...well, that would be - different : )<br>
> <br>
> Lee<br>
> <br>
> ________________________________________ From: <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net"><bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net></a> on behalf of Guru
गुरु <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Guru@ITforChange.net"><Guru@ITforChange.net></a> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014
11:29 AM To: <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
Subject: <br>
> Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....<br>
> <br>
> On 03/17/2014 08:20 PM, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>>> David,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:<br>
>>>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Guru@ITforChange.net"><Guru@ITforChange.net></a> <br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>>> Dear all,<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where
the private <br>
>>>>> sector has an equal footing in public policy
making, we will <br>
>>>>> get Google to agree that its search
algorithm, as the key <br>
>>>>> factor organising the worlds
information/knowledge for all<br>
>>>>> of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
commercial<br>
>>>>> secret. The need for it to be public
knowledge stems from <br>
>>>>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such
fundamental <br>
>>>>> knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural
commons' that <br>
>>>>> others can take/re-use/revise, fostering
competition etc.<br>
>>>> Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many
in civil <br>
>>>> society, or government for that matter, might
oppose it <br>
>>>> becoming public knowledge. Such a course of
action would<br>
>>>> almost certainly lead to many Google searches
returning results<br>
>>>> ranked according to the most industrious search
engine<br>
>>>> optimisation service customers, rather than
having at least a<br>
>>>> reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful
way.<br>
>>> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed
and I did <br>
>>> give a response ...<br>
>> Hi Guru,<br>
>> <br>
>> Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points
I made,<br>
>> so I didn't bother to reply further. You agreed to a
high<br>
>> probability of gaming occurring... and suggested
research. I took<br>
>> this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic
when<br>
>> stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public<br>
>> knowledge.<br>
> Hardly Adam, for any public policy, there will be innumerable
<br>
> issues/challenges. the challenge of gaming is obvious and I
have no<br>
> doubt it needs to be and can be addressed.<br>
> <br>
> By the same logic, free and open source software should have
the <br>
> maximum viruses since it the source code is freely available.
<br>
> Paradoxically, while Windows is plagued with viruses,
GNU/Linux is <br>
> not. One of the reasons given is that, the open source allows
many <br>
> people to study and identify issues and help resolve it...
whereas <br>
> this is not possible with proprietary software.<br>
> <br>
> Do you accept that Google keeping its search algorithm has
dangerous<br>
> public interest implications - we really dont know what is
hidden<br>
> in the code used by millions of users and how it may have
malignant<br>
> code that can serve its commercial (and post Snowden we know
how many<br>
> US IT companies are hand in glove with the USG) political
interest<br>
> of its masters.? If yes, then you need to think of a public<br>
> interest based response to this ... the ball is in your
court as<br>
> well..<br>
> <br>
> Guru<br>
> <br>
>> Best,<br>
>> <br>
>> Adam<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> </span><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>