Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -

[Michael Gurstein]

Gee Bill,
 
I thought I was sufficiently skilled at putting my foot in my mouth without
others trying to do it for me...
 
What I said was...
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. (Nothing there that I can see about Canon,
Flickr, international pricing etc.etc.)

I don't know the details of the case under discussion here but it would
follow that if certain information is only accessible on the Internet via a
certain tool then denial of access to that tool is the same as denial of
access to that information. (on a national level this is for example the
case for ensuring that government information on the web is available in a
format which is accessible by those with different types of disability).

The above logic is I believe the logic behind the determination by that
steadily increasing number of countries which are accepting in one form or
another a "Right to the Internet"...

Since as we all presumably agree, the governance of the Internet (and the
opportunities which the Internet provides) is necessarily global then such
governance, it could/should be argued should follow a similar logic at the
global level.

As you well know many countries followed policy/regulatory strategies to
ensure some sort of universal access to POTS for precisely these
reasons--not going so far as making this a "right" presumably for the
logistical reasons that you point to... Again as you/we all would agree the
Internet and the opportunities that it affords are rather different from
POTS and thus how it and these should be treated in the context of
governance matters should differ as well.

The modalities of implementing such a position I would of course leave to
you and others better versed in such matters than myself.

Best,

Mike    Q\A

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 4:14 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Fouad Bajwa'
Subject: Re: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -


Hi Michael, 

I did read you message and thought I responded by implication, but I can be
more direct if you like.  So leaving aside the "authoritarian" nonsense,
which you'd told me not to dismiss and to which I hence responded, if you
are saying that people have a human right to be able to purchase any
commercially provided tools that can be construed as necessary for access
broadly defined, and that companies therefore should have some sort of moral
or legal obligation to make said tools available to anyone anywhere, some
questions follow. For example, which tools qualify, for which types of
access?  My wife just brought home a new camera from Japan.  Did we have a
human right to this camera?  After all, to fully access and use the
functionalities of Flickr etc we need one.  Does Cannon have an obligation
to sell it in every country?  What about pricing?  The thing cost $300 more
in Switzerland than it does in Japan; should Cannon be bound to sell it for
the lower price here, irrespective of distribution and other costs?  Do I
have a human right to customer support?  Via a toll free number?  Software
upgrades? What about standards, must they be open as a matter of right? Or
substitute a Kindle, iPhone, whatever, for my camera...

POTS universal service requirements are clear and defensible, basic dial
tone from territorially bound, price regulated, infrastructure-based
operators that have market power etc.  Universal access requirements get a
little more complex given the different characteristics and regulatory
status of the ISP industry and terminal equipment etc, but the challenges
are reasonably tractable and some governments are trying.  But extending the
notion of rights and obligations far beyond this seems, to put it mildly,
fraught with difficulties.  I'm open to persuasion though, if you'd like to
map out the equipment/service/applications/suppliers/terms and conditions
etc are to be covered as a matter of right, as well as how and by whom such
rights would be established and adjudicated globally etc.  It's a different
argument to the one we were talking about and would merit a different
subject line, but I'm all eyes.

Thanks,

Bill


On Nov 26, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:


Hmmm.... 

Bill, it might have been good to have actually read what I wrote and engaged
with that rather than a straw man based on a repetition of Fuad's original
statement.

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 don't know the details of the case under discussion here but it would
follow that if certain information is only accessible on the Internet via a
certain tool then denial of access to that tool is the same as denial of
access to that information.

To my mind this is not a strictly commercial issue. 

Mike 

-----Original Message----- 
From: William Drake [ <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 12:18 AM 
To: Michael Gurstein 
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Fouad Bajwa' 
Subject: Re: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism - 


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.

Best, 

Bill 



***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091126/63eff30c/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