Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
Meryem Marzouki
meryem at marzouki.info
Fri Nov 27 08:22:40 EST 2009
Parminder,
I fully agree with you that regulation of giant corporates - not only
at global but also at regional and national levesl in countries where
they operate or have subsidiaries - as you formulate it is an issue
of foremost importance and that it is much needed. This issue has in
addition to be dealt with in various fora and framework, not only
those related to Internet governance, as the "Proposal for a WTO
Agreement on the Supply of Knowledge as a Global Public Good" example
forwarded by Michael shows.
However, it's not fair to interpret as "inappropriate",
"inconsiderate", and "a smack of insensitivity" an - ironical, I
admit - comment of the very specific and minor consumer issue as the
one brought by Fouad with the example of Amazon Kindle software for
PC not being available in Pakistan. By minor, I mean that it's an
inconvenience, not a violation of human rights nor an obstacle to
development, not even a breach of any consumer rights (consumer
rights does not include any "right to consume").
The irony of the comment (comparison with unavailabity of good
Mexican food in Geneva) was simply proportional to the exageration in
calling "authoritarianism" the fact that a given commercial product
is not available in a given country. Words matter, because they
express concepts and there unadequate use might lead to the dilution
of these concepts and the softening of problems that really matter,
by equating them to minor issues. I am sure this was certainly not
Fouad's intention, but we should be cautious on this kind of process:
they are intentionally used far too often, and it's so easy to get
traped.
I lived during the first 25 years of my life in Tunisia, my other
country of culture and citizenship and my country of birth, still
have family there and visit them regularly. You cannot imagine the
number of goods and services that are not available there (not even
speaking of affordability), for various reasons: market not wide
enough for some goods or services, too expensive or not worth to be
imported (the Tunisian Dinar is not quoted on the international
currency market) and many other commercial or financial reasons as
already suggested in this discussion. Conversely, there are also
Tunisian goods and services that I cannot find elsewhere in the
world. Too bad, but so what?
As far as I'm concerned, I keep the word 'authoritarianism' for cases
when, e.g. a book cannot be found in Tunisia (or is taken by the
police in your luggage when you enter the country) for censorship
reasons, not when I cannot find it easily in any Tunisian bookshop
simply because no one besides me would be interested in reading (and
thus buying) it.
Best,
Meryem
Le 27 nov. 09 à 13:30, Parminder a écrit :
> 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]
>> 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]
>>> 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]
>>>> 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> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091127/8948d47e/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