[bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

[McTim]

<trimming cc list, as we have already had this flame-war on the governance
list>


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its
> search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge
>


I believe the assumptions underlying this argument are faulty.

Google is just ONE way to search, it is not the ONLY way.

In addition, it is not clear that MSism would extend to such issues as
gov'ts are not about to give up sovereignty over such "regulation".  I
understand you would like an int'l treaty on such issues, but expecting
gov'ts to give up authority on this kind of thing is, I think, unrealistic.


If this standard were to be consistently carried out not just across search
engines, but across ALL sectors, then there could never be "commercial
secrets" in any industry or even as Suresh points out downthread, in CS
either.



> , not a commercial secret. The need
>

This is a WANT, not a NEED.




>  for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns,
> because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural
> commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>


By that Standard ALL software/algorithms MUST be FOSS.  Is that your
position?

rgds,

McTim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140310/597ce60a/attachment.htm>