Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example

Fri Nov 27 09:00:40 EST 2009

Just a quick intervention...

The Internet Rights and Principles coalition is starting to think in terms of:

(a)    What do our existing fundamental human rights mean in the context of the internet?

(b)   What do we need to do to ensure that the internet supports (rather than undermines) these rights?

Issues of open networks, interoperability, consumer choice, inclusive participation in governance etc fall into the second category, which we're working to define in terms of policy principles to implement human rights on the internet..."implementation principles".

All the best,

Lisa

From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:meryem at marzouki.info] 
Sent: 27 November 2009 13:23
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example

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> <mailto: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/20091127/2f4ccdf0/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