[governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC at IGF

[Avri Doria]

Hi,


On 22 okt 2006, at 22.58, George Sadowsky wrote:

> Milton,
>
> I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my focus in  
> this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense.

While many countries have made laws regarding access, this does not  
mean that there is any inherent right in the notions of the State to  
indicate that they have this right.  Certainly they grabbed it at  
some point in history, but to perpetuate that right into the Internet  
age, is at best a misfortune.

Yes, many countries have wrapped themselves in the rhetoric of  
sovereignty to claim control over communications in their countries,  
but i see nothing that supports such a claim of control, other then  
people's acquiescence and that acquiescence is bolstered by the  
notion that these things should be under national control.

> I'm concerned about the economic health of the Internet industry in  
> a country, and that's very much a function of the government's  
> attitude toward competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or  
> not), and transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in  
> creating or destroying barriers to entry, etc....
>

I do not disagree that nations have something to say about monopolies  
or fair trade with their borders, but these are general issues and  
not specifically related to the internet.  Just as the issue of cyber- 
crime is really the issue of crime.

And yet even these issues, given the nature of the internet have a  
tendency to be cross border issues.  This is certainly the case with  
crime.  so as time goes on, the role of nation is minimized while the  
role on international cooperation is increased.

Now, i am not arguing against the influence of the locale.  Certainly  
different peoples have different cultures, understandings and needs  
and these determine the methods in which they participate in the  
Internet and in Internet governance - based on the form  of what a  
people is able to do and able to accept at a certain point in time.   
But this localization is not dependent on nationalization, and in  
most cases is suppressed by the dominant national force.

> The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more prices to  
> consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and not  
> monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the access  
> they have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will  
> grow and serve the developmental goals of the country.

I understand that many subscribe to this business oriented article of  
faith. I have not been convinced.  And I have not seen any systematic  
studies that show this to be the case.  Anecdotally it seems to me  
that in many localities, the cheapest access, is that provided by the  
community for free.  This has certainly been the case in those  
communities that, despite the harassment by "free and fair business",  
have created local networks that are made available to the community  
either for free or at locally controlled utility level costs.

> And, if the country has reasonable consumer protection legislation,  
> it is likely to really benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net  
> and not retard it.  These are issues that are directly affected by  
> national government policy, legislation and regulation.

E-commerce is certainly an International issue with agreement  
necessary to prevent nationalists from creating trade barriers.

>
> What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the  
> international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with.  I do  
> not disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that  
> require international attention.

To the extent that nation needs to remove the regulations they have  
created that stiffle the growth of the internet and other ICTs, i  
agree, there is a role for the nations.  However, i do not beleive  
any of them will give up their greed, corruption or nationalist  
interests without the pressure that can only be generated  
internationally.  Mind you i am not arguing for intergovernmental  
action, though  that will be an essential ingredient for the  
foreseeable future in international action.  I am arguing that it is  
only with international multistakeholder intervention and pressure  
that things will change.

>
> Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ...

I tend to think that you are tilting that balance very much in the  
business oriented direction.  I am looking for a point of  
mulltistakeholder balance that does not favor one economic faith over  
another.

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance