Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
Eric Dierker
cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Fri Nov 27 08:28:27 EST 2009
If it were that I had no voice, how would I speak? If I had no sight how would I see? If I could not read how would I read? If everyone spoke %$&$& and I did not, how could I understand? If no one could see me how could I exist?
What silliness. But if we were to change the reality of life and make it global. If in order to really communicate we now needed to do so on a fully global plane. Then the above silliness would take on a whole new meaning. The existance of such basic need/rights as Speech, Press, Medicine, Food, Water, Religion would actually require that: We could speak on a global basis, See on a global basis, read on a global basis and understand on a global basis.
It is not and was not my choice to learn, semiphore, morse code, in fact smoke signals, some Navajo, some Hopi, some Spanish, some German, some Creole. But my environment growing up required it to get along, learn, eat and avoid fights, or call for help.
My family has the last remaining "party line" phone in our region.
It is not and was not my choice that my pharmaceuticals were made in Europe, South America and Asia. Not my choice that the pipes that bring me water are from China and the fruit in my bowl from Australia. That my clothes are from every continent and my vegatables from Florida and Mexico.
It is not my fault that now I need a computer to have the only voice that counts, and to read the only knowledge that is sufficient, even to know if my water and fruits are safe or that my medicine will not kill me. It was not my doing that everything be so internationally globally interconnected that I need online access to asure my childs environment is a safe as can be. But it is now so - I cannot change that.
So now I must have a new Voice, Sight, language and understanding and I believe it is my right. Anything less would be to disrespect my dignity.
--- On Fri, 11/27/09, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
Cc: "'Meryem Marzouki'" <meryem at marzouki.info>
Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 12:30 PM
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
____________________________________________________________
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/20091127/3c63fc1f/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