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

[Fouad Bajwa]

I respect and want to continue to observe the allowance for number of
messages to the list in one day but I must share something to this
fruitful discussion as it seems to be formulating a foundation for the
Development Agenda with respect to Internet Governance.

I may have felt a bit bad and disappointed over comparing the issue of
non-availability of a 'basic' and enabling software like Kindle's
e-reader software, with the non-availability of Mexican food in Geneva
and I am sorry that being in Pakistan I can't find Mexican food and I
can't afford expensive restaurants when I am travelling abroad or I
don't know where are the cheaper Mexican food places across the globe.
Maybe my state of affairs are much deteriorated than the more
privileged people around me but my concerns about Internet Governance
that may be perceived as 'amateur' and less intellectual are also
important.

The Internet is a network of networks. These digital networks can be
by Governments, by the private sector, by the technical community, by
the people, by Civil Society, researchers etc...and there is no limit
to the amounts of digital networks or how they are controlled. This is
the basis for understanding Internet Authoritarianism. It is a display
of Authority over a network irrespective of the state of authorizing
or controlling entity. Limiting the Authority to be define by just a
government is a wrong understanding especially when issues about
Network Neutrality come in context.

A significant point to understand here is that the word Internet
Authoritarianism is still in evolution, keeping aside the literal
meaning of this word. I never heard this word before until I initially
started its discussion some time ago in the IGC. It was not related to
a government or an institution only. It was not the basis of defining
which or authority or what. It brings into context the have and have
nots and the pressures exerted both on purpose or with the intention
of maintaining monopoly, control, exertion of power, dividing access
etc. Its a phrase in evolution without appropriate definition or
consensus on what it exerts to. In fact, no one has authority over the
word Internet Authoritarianism yet and it will be used repeatedly in
various issues and situations.

Somehow when the topic of Internet Authoritarianism comes up, members
from the developed world tend to over power the discussions to
asserting that IA is an outright issue of government and related
governance. In intellectual capacity, that is highly respected but
when you see it from a Civil Society perspective, we want discussion
because its not how we see it who are forced to stay without the
facilities being offered to others. As I clearly mentioned earlier
that Pakistani neighbouring countries can access Amazon and its
offerings including downloads and shipment then why can't Pakistan?
Why is the region stereotyped directly to have a fraudulent and
dishonest onset from the beginning. This would encourage an
understanding on the Internet that once determined should be
applicable to this region for ever?

A key point to raising this discussion was the have and have nots for
us in the developing world. If the global policy making does touch the
issue of Internet Authoritarianism, then who are the implementers?
Will a global policy making initiative provide us from the developing
world access to those facilities that are widely available to the
people of the developed world? Will the global policy making provide
me with e-commerce facilities? Will global policy making be the
interface for access extended to the developing world? If you bring
this to the point that today we can access both versions, the offline
version and the Kindle version but what about the convergence and the
future, what if in the future there would be only one version produced
since the world has embraced Kindles, E-Book Readers and E-Paper as
the main tool for accessing documentation?

If you look in our countries in the developing world with in the
context of off-line commerce, you will find MacDonalds, KFC, Hardies,
Dunkin Doughnuts, Pizza Huts, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Nestle, Time
Magazines, Publications, Books, Carrefour, Seven-Elevens, Oil
Companies and say nearly 500 multinationals in our region. If that
form of commerce is applicable and there is no fraudulent environment
in the off-line commerce and trade world, why is this implication
practised online? Is this not an outright contradiction of imposing a
superficial corporate internet authority making an independent yet
alone decision not to service one country out of the region? What will
policy analysts and decision makers have to say about this approach?

This is not Fouad's minor issue because Fouad was aware about the
Internet and took the initiative in identifying it. Its an issue for
all of us that we are not included in what is offered to more than a
billion people of the world? Fouad's example of Amazon Kindle software
for PC not being available in Pakistan is a step to realize that there
are more issues like these that may require the attention of the
governors of the Internet and its public participation sphere. May I
ask at this stage why does MIT offer Open Courseware to people
connecting to it from Pakistani IPs? This is to identify that its not
right.

Smaller issues become may become a problem and equating them to minor
issues, true, that was certainly not my intention, but now I am
concerned how this discussion led to being cautious of "this kind of
process: they are intentionally used far too often, and it's so easy
to get traped"?, would this mean our voice from the developing world
should follow a process that is ascertained by someone else for us
otherwise we will fall out of the policy debate?

People may want to be cautious but we will have to understand this
that these digital giants do have a strong influence over authority of
the Internet. They do take decisions that are sometimes not regulated
nor influenced by governments until and unless someone raises the
issue and brings it into light. As Parminder interpreted it right that
"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." There is no system to
ensure it and no process available to deliberate that. These companies
do have 'imperialist' designs and as Internet Authoritarianism
evolves, it should take into account exploration into this existing
framework of a new wave of neo-imperialism.

If we try to over-emphasize or limit the term Internet
Authoritarianism, it shows that we too want to limit the debate and
discussion or not tread on someone else's turf of Authority. IGC is
not immune to this authority debates and discussions and this is the
space where we members of Civil Society try to bring this into context
and you are all that help in clearly understanding or intellectually
contributing to the evolution or addressing of these issues. The
regulation of these giant corporates display rivalry  of many states
and as Parminder has raised that this understanding is shared by much
of civil society in the developed world.

The Internetwork, its digital ecosystem, its management, should it be
left unregulated and should we not step into this debate and let the
"Authorities" give the definition and control sets of the global
Internet policy arena? Is the statist control on the Internet the only
discussion on global Internet governance and/or policy-making. I
agree, it does feel like a red-herring and is problematic for
developing countries and yes is a key element of the Development
Agenda on IG and I am happy this discussion is moving towards this.

I hope we do not intermingle Human Rights and the Development Agenda
issues though they are interdependent and effect each other.

I am still disappointed over the comparison of IA and Mexican Food.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 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 :
>
>
>

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
____________________________________________________________
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