Fwd: Re: Re: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not

Sat Aug 27 10:42:36 EDT 2011

This email seems to meant for the IGC list and got marked by mistake to 
my id alone.

And I think i makes some very important points. One of which is that 
global harmonisation should increase rather than decrease outcomes on 
public interest.

parminder

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Re: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws 
apply, and whose do not
Date: 	Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:39:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: 	marie.georges at noos.fr
To: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

Hi every one
May I add to the discussion the basic reference to the discussed matter 
which is the  worldwide rule relating to the free trade of goods and 
services contained in the  The General Agreement on Trade in Services 
(**GATS**) , the treaty of the*World Trade Organization*(**WTO**), that 
entered into force in January 1995 as a result of the Uruguay Round.

Article XIV of this general agreement  provides for an agreed list of 
public interests grounds on the basis of which  States are allowed to 
forbid importation of goods and services which are not complying with 
national laws. The adoption of that article made the success of the GATS

Interesting enough is one  those grounds:   health (another is  data 
protection....)

That is why the only way to prevent obstacles from the "free flow..;" is 
"harmonization". That is why in the EU, and other regional 
organizations, such harmonization are  set up.

Secondly in those fields as in the Human rights field, the harmonization 
needed to allow the "free flow.." has to be "on a high level", which 
means that  the harmonized system of protection cant lead to lower the 
level of protection  insured prior to it in the concerned States.

---- Message d'origine ----
De : "parminder"
À : governance at lists.cpsr.org
Objet : Re: [governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws 
apply, and whose do not
Date : 27/08/2011 11:42:43 CEST

Riaz

The merits of any particular law being applied is not the issue here. It 
is the right of political communities to have systems to govern 
themselves, and not be subject to the dictates/ laws of the most 
powerful, vis a vis whom people subject to the power/ laws have no right 
of representation or redress.

A position on this second issue, which is the intended one in the 
present thread, is imp to take, whatever it may be. It should not be 
confused with a discussion on the actual merits of a particular law. (In 
the present case, you may have a point, but what do you thus imply. US 
gov should not be able to apply its politically developed laws to acts 
taking place within its boundaries in an area as crucial to public 
interest as health. Improving these laws, and removing the influence of 
special interest is an entirely different issue which we would of course 
agree on.)

... parminder

On Saturday 27 August 2011 01:57 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
> I think it is important that the issue of pharmaceuticals regulation 
> on the internet be treated with caution - there the issue is being 
> used along with efforts by BigPharma to prevent parallel importation 
> (and not consumer protection).
>
> And regarding choice of laws, I am not convinced that it is as easily 
> resolvable as all that.
>
> As Nader in the US has pointed out, why is it we accept contractual 
> terms set in fine print etc for regulation of most of our arrangements 
> - and many of these terms contract out of consumer protection or 
> benefits that the law would provide (example waivers etc). But in 
> common law (roman dutch jurisdictions) contractual liability can 
> attach, notwithstanding claims of choice of laws in some cases, where 
> the contract was entered into, where either party resides, and where 
> there is a the possibility of not rendering an empty verdict (like 
> getting a judgement and then seeking enforcement of that judgement in 
> a foreign jurisdiction). While contractual claims may be difficult, it 
> is the violation of "fair contracting" terms that (consumer 
> protection) etc that makes liability issues a global concern. And 
> hence something that puts poorer countries at disadvantage.
>
> Riaz
>
> On 2011/08/27 01:13 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <4E5795FF.5080606 at digsys.bg>, at 15:47:59 on Fri, 26 Aug 
>> 2011, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> writes
>>> According to the 'government rule' opinion, that country's 
>>> government should be able to sue Google and/or the "Canadian" drug 
>>> sellers for breaching their national laws. Has this ever happened? 
>>> There are lots of things, that Internet makes accessible to anyone, 
>>> including people whose local government has decided they are not 
>>> entitled to it.
>>> What typically happens is it is the consumer that gets beaten for 
>>> not assisting the law.
>>
>> Pharmaceuticals are an interesting case because what's normally being 
>> regulated is the ability to prescribe them, not the consumption.
>>
>> Therefore, there are some pharmaceuticals which are available "over 
>> the counter" in some countries, but a Doctor's prescription is 
>> required in other countries. Similarly there are certain 
>> pharmaceuticals which are available by Doctor's prescription in some 
>> countries, but only if you are on a clinical trial in other countries 
>> (where the regulator has not yet determined that they are safe to use).
>>
>> If the medical community, which is relatively joined-up worldwide, 
>> has not been able to harmonise these things yet, I'm not sure that 
>> those of us in the Internet Governance space can do much to help.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110827/6929c3db/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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