Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
Deirdre Williams
williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Tue Dec 1 09:30:53 EST 2009
To coin a phrase I am “differently worlded”. My home is the small island
state of Saint Lucia in the Eastern Caribbean. To travel to the Internet
Governance Forum at Sharm el Sheikh I made reservations online with Virgin
Atlantic and British Airways and paid with my credit card, parent bank in
Barbados (although I notice that the statements arrive from Florida). No
problem. So what’s different? Nothing as far as that transaction was
concerned.
When I came home from Egypt I tried to book tickets for myself and my
husband to travel to Lima in Peru to visit our daughter for Christmas. I was
initially bitterly disappointed because it seemed impossible to get
reservations, but to my great joy I found seats during a last try on
Saturday morning. Sunday was graduation at the college where I teach – as
soon as that was over I went down to the airport to pay. The office was
closed. The office was closed for the weekend. My precious reservation would
expire at one minute to midnight.
I rushed home, only to discover that the “24 hour reservation number”
doesn’t work on Sunday evenings in Saint Lucia – although we have daily
American Eagle flights to Puerto Rico and also American Airlines flights to
Miami several days a week including Sundays. I eventually got hold of
Bradley at American Eagle in Castries. He was very sorry but he couldn’t
help – what I was asking for was an extension of the payment deadline to the
following morning when the office would open and I could pay.
I was making contact via skype with a friend in Toronto to ask him to call
on my behalf to see what he could do, since the other numbers given by
American don’t work from here, when a miracle happened. Bradley called back.
He had managed to extend my reservation.
Yesterday I went to the airport with the money – almost $3000 US – to pay
for the tickets. Even then I was charged an extra $40 US for “ticketing”.
About 10 years ago I was following a discussion on the GKD list about the
wonders of the Internet for business. At that time I was trying to get my
second daughter from Lima to London. I found just what I wanted online with
KLM – except that they wouldn’t take my credit card, so I had to transfer
the money, expensively, to Lima so that she could pay for the ticket there.
I lost my temper comprehensively online – and “met” so many nice people who
sympathised but were unable to help
I believe that the south perceives the north fairly accurately, but the
north is somehow unable to perceive the south. Rights should be equal in so
far as that is possible. If a right is a human right then it is an
entitlement of people everywhere. American Airlines, Kindle and the
Government of Pakistan all have rights too, but their rights are subservient
to our rights, since they are made of us. I think that this a something that
the process of the IGF is reminding us about – I hope successfully.
Best wishes
Deirdre
2009/11/27 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Hi All
>
> Getting late into something which as Carlos said is an interesting
> discussion...
>
> Even if we agree to not apply the terms authoritarianism and human rights
> here, the underlying issue is of great importance suggesting urgent need for
> global Internet policy making, and developing institutions that are adequate
> to that purpose. The issue also suggests that existing global policy
> institutions do not cover a good deal of new ground that is opened up with
> this global phenomenon of Internet becoming an important part of more and
> more aspects of our social lives...
>
> It is fine to say that this is a consumer rights issue, and i agree with
> Meryem that the real issue is that there should be enough alternative
> software/ devices and interoperability should be ensured... But the point
> is, who ensures that. Economically less powerful (developing) countries do
> not have the muscle to regulate these unprecedentedly huge global digital
> companies, and so they have to simply submit. The developed countries often
> see strong economic interest in not disturbing the 'imperialist' designs of
> these companies which are almost all based in these countries and bring
> them a lot of economic benefits and sustaining advantage (the framework of
> a new wave of neo-imperialism).
>
> Who then regulates these giant corporates, whose power now rivals that of
> many states? There seem to be a clear and strong tendency, shared by much of
> civil society in the developed world - IGC not being immune to it - that
> Internet (and its digital ecosystem) should be left unregulated, mostly. At
> least there seems to be no urgency to do anything about global Internet
> policy arena. The fear of statist control on the Internet has become all
> that ever counts in any discussion on global Internet governance/
> policy-making. (This has become almost a red-herring now.) This is
> problematic for developing countries, and to the collective interests of the
> people of these countries, (the right to development) which are in great
> danger of losing out as the (non-level) digital playground is being set out,
> without due regulation in global public interest. To get the right global
> governance institutions and outcomes to address this vital issue, in my
> opinion, is what should centrally constitute the 'development agenda in
> IG'.
>
> I would consider it very inappropriate, and very inconsiderate, to compare
> such real problems that developing counties increasingly face, and will face
> in future to an even greater extent, like the non-availability of 'basic'
> and enabling software like e-readers, with non-availability of Mexican food
> in Geneva... It is even more inappropriate to speak of people of 'certain
> persuasion' who in WTO arena oppose certain multinational invasion of
> unprotected markets in developing countries, as being a sentiment and act in
> opposition to raising the issues of necessary provision of basic enabling
> software/ devices on fair and open standard terms to people of developing
> countries. Our organization has joined protests on many WTO issues, but do
> clearly sympathize with the present issue under consideration. They proceed
> from very different logics, but have a convergence in the fact that (1)
> global economy (and society) have to regulated in global public interest
> , and (2) the interest of developing countries is often different from that
> of developed countries. Appropriate global regulatory and governance systems
> have to be built which take into account these differentials, without being
> formulaic about it. That in my understanding constitutes the development
> agenda in global forums.
>
> Many other examples of commercial digital services have been given - like
> paypal etc - denial of which can have a very strong exclusionary effect of
> people and groups... Exclusion has to be seen and addressed in its real,
> felt forms and not by simplistic comparisons, which smack of insensitivity.
>
> Think of Microsoft suddenly refusing to give Windows related services to a
> country (I know many would take it as a blessing, but there are strong issue
> there still), or Skype not being available in a country which would cut its
> residents off many a global tele-meetings (including civil society ones).
> Or, Google, especially after it has all of us doing every second online
> activity on its platform, cutting off its services to a country... this
> surely isnt about Mexican food in Geneva.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> Bien sur!
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info <meryem at marzouki.info>]
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:35 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
> of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -
>
>
> My English skills probably need improvement:
> First of all, it's not about participating in *a* debate, but
> participating in *the democratic debate* (this means, at least in
> French, full democratic participation).
> Second, it's about the "full exercize of democracy and of one's
> fundamental rights", which means full democratic participation AND
> full exercize of fundamental rights". To my knowledge, education/
> health/development are part of fundamental rights, aren't they? Meryem
>
> Le 26 nov. 09 à 19:03, Michael Gurstein a écrit :
>
>
>
> But opportunities to "participate in a debate" on something (e.g.
> education/health/development) is rather narrower (and less significant
> certainly) than an opportunity to actually have an
> education/health/development, or have I missed something.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info <meryem at marzouki.info>]
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 9:52 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE:
> [governance] Example
> of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I thought this was covered by the "and one's fundamental rights" in
> the second part of the sentence. By "full exercize of democracy" I
> meant in this context participation in the democratic debate.
>
> Le 26 nov. 09 à 18:36, Michael Gurstein a écrit :
>
>
>
> Thanks Meryem,
>
> I agree with your reformulation of my rather awkward initial
> formulation...
> My one caveat (and here I'm again demonstrating my lack of
> familiarity with
> the "Rights" discourse) is that the statement "access to the
> Internet as a
> necessary requirement for the full exercize of democracy" seems to
> me rather
> too narrow in that one could add/substitute
> "development"/"health"/"education"/and so on for your terminology of
> "democracy".
>
> Meryem: "I would rather state it differently: access to the
> Internet as a
> necessary requirement for the full exercize of democracy and one's
> fundamental right requires that there are accessible tools that
> allow for or
> facilitate the use of the Internet."
>
> Mike
>
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info <meryem at marzouki.info>]
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 8:54 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet
> Authoritarianism -
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Carlos and Bill here. Even beyond this discussion, it's
> strange how often I've seen recently people - or organizations -
> speaking of consumer rights as human rights (i.e. fundamental
> rights). The
> fact that there exist national, regional, international
> legislation giving rights to consumers (w.r.t. to goods and services
> providers) does certainly not mean that this is a fundamental right!
>
> Regarding Michael's interpretation that: "If access to the Internet
> is a necessary requirement for participation in an "Information
> Society" then access to the tools that allow for or facilitate the
> use of the Internet especially when those tools are linked into some
> sort of monopolistic position with respect to the use of the Internet
> should surely fall under that rubric.", I would rather state it
> differently: access to the Internet as a necessary requirement for
> the full exercize of democracy and one's fundamental right requires
> that there are accessible tools that allow for or facilitate the use
> of the Internet". In other words, the requirement is not to access
> tools provided in a monopolistic position, but that there should be
> no monopolies, i.e. alternative tools should exist and be accessible,
> allowing access to and production of information as well as full
> participation.
>
> Going back to Fouad's initial example: the point is not that Amazon's
> Kindle software for PC is not accessible in Pakistan (though it might
> be an inconvenience for some), but rather that you couldn't read a
> given book unless using Amazon's Kindle software for PC. Which is not
> the case, apparently, since I can read the mentioned report (http://report.knightcomm.org/) through other means, e.g. with my browser, on
> a MacIntosh, connected from Paris.
>
> Conclusion: it's a pure (and minor, I would say but this is a
> personal opinion) consumer issue: someone wants to buy a product
> which is not available in his/her country. See Bill's problem in
> getting good Mexican food in Geneva, which those who know Bill would
> qualify as a much more preoccupying problem;))
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 26 nov. 09 à 14:30, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit :
>
>
>
> Wow, what a strange discussion. Let's contribute to it: how about
> iTunes
> or AppleTV only working in developed countries (one cannot purchase
> media without having a credit card account in the USA or some other
> developed country)? How about only now Sony introduces the PS2
> (PS2, an
> obsolete gadget) in Brazil, and has no plans to introduce the PS3?
>
> I think the whole discussion is biased by a focus on being able to
> consume (superfluous or not) stuff anywhere, whatever the big
> companies
> create to make us think we have to have it.
>
> --c.a.
>
> McTim wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM, William Drake<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that Bill's casual dismissal of this issue is not
> appropriate.
>
>
> There's a difference between disagreeing with something and being
> inappropriate.
>
>
> The logic here is surely the same as the overall logic of a
> "Right to the
> Internet" (remembering that I claim no expertise in the domain
> of discussion
> around "Rights"...
>
>
> Really? "Right to the Internet" is the same as declaring any
> company that doesn't sell a product in a given country to be
> "authoritarian."? Sorry, but this strikes me as fuzzy logic, and
> not the computer science kind.
>
> It used to be that when a transnational firm entered a developing
> country's market folks of certain persuasions would decry this as
> imperialist etc. But now if a firm does not enter a market we
> can also call them names normally associated with governments
> that brutalize their populations to retain political power?
> Maybe you should notify all the groups working against WTO
> agreements etc that they have it backwards and are promoting
> authoritarianism, whereas what they really should be doing is
> demanding that every company everywhere be required to sell
> everything everywhere else.
>
> Fouad says Amazon is authoritarian because it "dictates who buys
> or isn't allowed to buy from its website;" presumably, this would
> apply to other companies and distribution channels as well.
> Let's leave aside the many reasons why a company might not serve
> a given market---costs, level of effective demand, distribution,
> local partner requirements, regulatory/policy uncertainty/
> unfavorability, the prospects of fraud (as Carlton notes), etc
> etc---since I guess normal business considerations don't matter.
> All that does by Fouad's standard is can I buy what I want, and
> if not, they're equivalent with, say, the Burmese junta.
>
> I can't get real Mexican food at Geneva grocery stores. I
> couldn't buy a Coke at the Sharm airport, only Pepsi. I can't
> watch most US TV shows over the net in Switzerland. I can't see
> most non-Hollywood US films, e.g. indies, at Geneva movie
> theaters. But I want these things. So am I a victim of
> authoritarianism?
>
> I'm sorry to hear that Kindle for PC is not currently available
> in Pakistan. Perhaps it would make sense to actually find out
> why this is so and see if anything can be done to encourage
> change? Might be more productive than misplaced sloganeering.
>
>
> +1
>
> I knew if I waited long enough, someone would spend the time to
> say this!
>
> BTW, Fouad, can you not use a proxy service?
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Carlos A. Afonso
> CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
> ====================================
> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
> ====================================
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091201/75fdd412/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list