[governance] From the Google Policy Blog

Sat Nov 5 20:20:55 EDT 2011

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your explanation, and your point is well taken. I just
want to leave two questions open (I don't think we can, nor do we need
to, solve them here.)

I know which side I am NOT on. But phrases such as "open Internet" or
"net neutrality" are not simple and transparent things. They are
tropes that at times make strange bedfellows, and sometimes might even
need to be dissected before they themselves realize how strange. For
all those who want "open Internet," how open do they want it to be?
That's where it might get a little complicated.

You say "...the Internet as we know it is under threat from many
quarters" and I might think, Internet has ever since been under threat
from ALL quarters. The threats just have different faces. But that's
probably another debate.

Best,
Mawaki

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Matthias and Mawaki:
>>
>> I think we all recognise that the Internet as we know it is under threat
>> from many quarters; those of us who want to keep it open and free need to
>> focus on what we have in common rather than on differences in how the
>> message is put by different stakeholders.
>
> I think the truth for all humans is that we must address the audience in the
> language and style that is most persuasive and relevant for them.  If a
> teenager has a holiday in a foreign country, and is called upon to explain
> it, they will use different details and emphases in talking of the same
> event with their best friend, a stranger, a sibling, their parents and their
> grandparents.  Often the entire package (and more) constitutes the whole
> truth, but the point is that we choose different arguments and facts to
> emphasize with different parties.
>
> So yes, economic arguments may be the only ones that certain parties find
> most persuasive, but most wise companies will give human rights at least
> some weight even if it is clearly not very important to them.  I'm not sure
> Nick is saying what I'm about to criticize: but a one size fits all
> approach,  using only the "common arguments" so we can all be on message is
> not particularly effective, nor human.  Sometimes we are forced to do that,
> but only if a group of humans are so closely identified with each other that
> it is fair to attribute the comments of person A to the comments of person
> B.  In such cases, the persons in that kind of group will need to be "on
> message" saying about the same things all the time.
>
> But the whole reason for secret diplomacy and off-record discussions when
> they are *occasionally* appropriate (and often abused) is for the very
> reason that it is so hard to say the same thing all the time and convince
> enough partners to join a majority, or a super-majority, or a consensus.
> (Whichever applies)
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>
>> Regards, Nick
>>
>> PS: anything I ever say here is entirely personal and unrelated to my
>> professional life.
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2011, at 15:23, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>> > I do not see Facebook among the endorsers! Talking about cross-border
>> > data flows in this day and age, and the nb. 1 online social networking
>> > company is missing? Perhaps if you throw in there a single positive
>> > mention of human rights you may end up with even less endorsers. Is
>> > this (intended to be) anything more than a coalition of companies
>> > petitioning their government to secure predictable --and friendly,
>> > while at it-- environment for their business to thrive worldwide?
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Mawaki
>> >
>> > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Matthias C. Kettemann
>> > <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>> >> It's actually quite disappointing that the six-page principles
>> >> outlining
>> >> "priorities for the business community" do not contain a single
>> >> reference to
>> >> "human rights".
>> >>
>> >> When the document refers to the need of establishing "international
>> >> commitments" on, inter alia, "expressly prohibit[ing] restrictions on
>> >> legitimate cross‐border information flows", the narrow focus becomes
>> >> very
>> >> much apparent. These commitments already largely exist: they are called
>> >> human rights.
>> >>
>> >> Clearly, a business case can be (also) made for human rights diplomacy.
>> >> Relying on existing human rights law and calling states to account for
>> >> violations of information and communication freedoms is the shared
>> >> responsiblity of all stakeholders, including companies.
>> >>
>> >> The business community has shown that it is sometimes not afraid to
>> >> call
>> >> human rights by their name, as does for example the Global Network
>> >> Initiative.
>> >>
>> >> Kind regards
>> >>
>> >> Matthias
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 05.11.2011 13:56, schrieb McTim:
>> >>
>> >> Advancing the free flow of information
>> >>
>> >> Friday, November 4, 2011 at 12:28 PM ET
>> >>
>> >> Posted by Winter Casey, Senior Policy Analyst, Google
>> >>
>> >> The global economy relies on the free flow of information more than
>> >> ever
>> >> before. Companies large and small can use the Internet to reach new
>> >> markets,
>> >> which contributes to economic growth, job creation, and increased trade
>> >> around the world.
>> >>
>> >> But as companies and individuals are transmitting more information
>> >> online,
>> >> some governments are seeking to impose limits on the free flow of
>> >> information. More than 40 governments now block or restrict information
>> >> and
>> >> data available on the Internet.
>> >>
>> >> Last year, we released a white paper demonstrating that governments
>> >> which
>> >> block the free flow of information on the Internet are also blocking
>> >> trade
>> >> and economic growth. For example, when companies can’t confidentially
>> >> and
>> >> confidently transmit the files and information that are necessary to
>> >> keep
>> >> their business running, their ability to export goods and services is
>> >> hurt.
>> >> The thesis is simple: when countries support the free flow of
>> >> information,
>> >> they will see more economic growth.
>> >>
>> >> That’s why we joined companies like Citi, Microsoft, IBM, GE and others
>> >> to
>> >> endorse a new set of principles endorsing the free flow of information
>> >> across borders. The principles, written under the leadership of the
>> >> National
>> >> Foreign Trade Council, outline several priorities for the U.S. business
>> >> community which will promote transparent, fair, and secure cross-border
>> >> data
>> >> flows.
>> >>
>> >> Individuals and businesses will benefit from a more consistent and
>> >> transparent framework for the treatment of cross-border flows of goods,
>> >> services and information. We look forward to continued work with
>> >> governments
>> >> and industry to advance the free flow of information online.
>> >>
>> >> ------------------
>> >> Principles are here:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nftc.org/default/Innovation/PromotingCrossBorderDataFlowsNFTC.pdf
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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, 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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