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

Fri Nov 27 11:52:37 EST 2009

I'ld like to toss a few somewhat disconnected but related
propositions/statements into this very fruitful discussion.

1. times (and technologies) change. If certain principles (rights?) are
meant to be universal and unchangeable but don't seem to connect very well
with changed times/technologies then either the principles need to change
(but they are unchangeable) or some alternative route needs to be found to
respond to those changes either by facilitating a reinterpretation/extension
of those principles or by finding a substitute mechanism that achieves a
similar end.

2. the IGC is meant to be civil societies voice in Internet Governance
issues. The question here is whether there are new issues arising which need
a Civil Society position and a Civil Society voice in Internet Governance
fora.  

3. the Internet is by its very nature global and in many aspects does not
allow for national regulation/policy making/control etc.etc. Either those
aspects will remain unrgulated/un-"policied"/uncontrolled or mechanisms need
to be developed at the global level to respond to these

4. for the US Government movies (and cultural products in general) are seen
as consumer products equivalent to bars of soap or chinese food in Geneva
i.e. to be subject only to consumer protection/regulation (and to be
governed under the jurisdiction of the WTO).  For many other countries
(Canada being a notable leader in this for very significant and applicable
reasons which I could explain if asked) movies (and cultural products in
general) are seen as a fundamental element of national culture to be
protected as such under the UNDHR with a special global Convention on
Cultural Diversity (through UNESCO) created specifically to ensure those and
directly related issues.

I'm wondering if what we are discussing here might not be the beginnings of
such a necessary global mechanism (there are a range of these of various
strengths/applicabliity) and is it not incumbent on we as the IGC to be
taking some leadership in this area?

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 6:44 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example

Meryem

I started my email by saying we may not want to use the terms
'authoritarianism' or 'human rights' here.

The reference to Mexican food in Geneva came after a round where the term
'authoritarian' had been kind of muted out of the discussion, and Micheal
had made a clear case of '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".

 Speaking of Mexican food in Geneva in this context, and also with new
examples like paypal being added to the kindle one, is in my view
insensitive and inconsiderate to the basic set of concerns being expressed. 

Also, at least i did not say 'authoritarian nonsense' :) ...

In the global digital space, which is a new global social space, private
monopolistic controls are a huge issue, perhaps 'the' issue, and it is
obvious that this is what was being discussed at this stage, along with
corresponding issue of debilitating exclusions.. 

I would not consider non-availability of one set of goods or others in  a
country as a comparable example. What is more comparable is what I found to
some shock when I visited Iran a few years back. Credit cards do not work
there because the companies are mostly US and they follow a kind of embargo.
Many people came to meeting I went for without enough cash, and they had to
use credit cards in black (illegal overseas transactions) to get cash. And
of course normal business in Iran would be hugely affected, locally, as well
as globally. it is this kind of basic enabling services that need to be
treated at a very different level than simple goods. And as digital world
gets more and more enmeshed in our lives, these monopolies, and
imperialistic powers behind it, is the issue at stake, and begins discussed.
Correspondingly, it is the deep exclusions and new dependencies that will
develop that are of concern.

I know you do agree to these concerns generally, but do not agree to frame
them as a human rights issue. I can agree. But when you say, it may not be
even be an issue of 'consumer rights' i may not agree. As you said in an
earlier email, it may not be so much that I want to use a particular
commercial software as a right, as of open standards and
inter-interoperability with local options that can be developed. That is a
certainly a huge consumer right issue. 

Best, Parminder 

Meryem Marzouki wrote: 

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

 <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
<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