[governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 16:52:50 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
writes
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I'd start from a position that Public Policy is what's expressed in laws
>> and treaties, whereas operational policy is founded in standards
>> documents and contracts (and including Acceptable-Use Policies and Best
>> Practices). The overlaps starts when someone says "hey - let's have a
>> law or treaty that says this technical standard or contract term is
>> compulsory".
>
>The overlap starts well before that.
>
>What you are saying, in effect, is that if the government wants to 
>impose public policy concerns on the industry it must alter the 
>technical standards, or operations, or private contractual terms among 
>ISPs, hosting companies, etc.

I don't think there's a need to alter technical standards, but sometimes 
it's necessary to encourage people to use them. While interoperability 
is a strong driver for standards of content, many countries impose 
electrical standards upon modems (be they dialup, 3G or ADSL).

In terms of operations, some have had government imposed rules about 
quality-of-service, and we are nudging towards a universal service 
obligation in some places. If they don't do it already, ISPs can also 
find they are required to demonstrate their billing systems are correct, 
that they have an easily accessible dispute resolution scheme, and that 
they can provide bills suitable for the partially sighted.

As for contracts between ISPs and hosting companies, there is sometimes 
competition law which forces an incumbent [telco] to provide wholesale 
facilities to independents at a fair price.

>Conversely, if it wants to allow industry players to set standards, 
>perform operations or negotiate contracts on their own, it will have 
>little influence on public policy. That tells me the two are 
>inseparable.

Many governments prefer the industry to self-regulate, and only step in 
where there's an overlap between online and offline life. For example, a 
ban on tobacco advertising, or rules about "false advertising", being 
enforced online as well as in newspapers and on TV.

>More fundamentally (and this is a point I explore at length in Networks 
>and States), when you talk about "public policy" what "public" are you 
>talking about? On the global internet, there are 200+ national publics, 
>many more subnational publics, and several transnational or regional 
>publics involved. If so, what gives a "national" public in the form of 
>one government the right to legislate in ways that affect 20 or 30 
>other publics over which they have no legitimate authority?
>
>Communications media create their own publics.

I have some experience of "Public Relations" and I'm aware that the 
"public" isn't just the "man in the street". As you rightly say, there 
are many public constituencies. There's commonly tension between them - 
what right has a government to tell an offshore gambling site it can't 
offer its services to their citizens, who are clearly split in their own 
views about whether gambling is a bad thing or not.

Consistency is improved when, for example, the same rules are negotiated 
to apply to "all of the Stares of America" or "all countries in the 
European Union". But you are correct that deciding where between "if 
it's illegal anywhere it should be banned everywhere" and "if it's legal 
somewhere it should be legal everywhere" is the right place for people 
to pitch their tent is quite a challenge.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t