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

[McTim]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:30 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

I'm glad we are agreed on something.

> here, the underlying issue is of great importance

What is the underlying issue?  That goods and services are available
to some global consumers and not others?

suggesting urgent need for
> global Internet policy making, and developing institutions that are adequate
> to that purpose.

No, it doesn't suggest that at all.  What it suggests is an
opportunity for people to provide a service/software to those unserved
markets.


 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.

Well, since the Kindle format is HTML based, that would be the W3C.

However, If Amazon wants to make proprietary software, that is their right, no?

There ARE many paypal alternatives, the free market ensures there are
alternatives.

Economically less powerful (developing) countries do
> not have the muscle to regulate these unprecedentedly huge  global digital
> companies,

Sure they do, they enact laws and regulations that apply within their borders.

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?

Nation states (and regional grouping like the EU).

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.

????  the Internet is (too) heavily regulated (and taxed) by national
governments.  Here in Kenya for example, ISPs are licensed and special
taxes apply (~35% of my access costs are direct taxes).  There are
content laws (and even content providers need a license).  The
government even shut down the IXP until it could figure out what kind
of beast it was and invent a new license for it.


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.

That's perhaps because it (statist control) is the single largest
threat to Internet freedom.

(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'.

So you'd like to build a global Internet police agency to enforce a
"right to paypal"?  That is completely unrealistic, not to mention
undesirable.


>
> 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...

You do every "second online activity" via Google because it offers
services that you want at a great price (free).  If Google/Skype/M$
shut off access to certain IP blocks (not countries), which is their
right IMO, then there are ways to route around such behavior
(proxies).

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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