[governance] From the Google Policy Blog

Sun Nov 13 16:40:03 EST 2011

Parminder,

> Now, we of the global civil society have to make up our mind on this.> Unfortunately, most people in the IG related civil society still live in a> strong denial of this emerging global reality. It is surprising how many> among the IG civil society themselves seem to have little problem with US> taking the leading and defining role in shaping and enforcing this new> emerging regime, as it evidently is.
What factors do you think are causing this misunderstanding?

The basic objective for all business ventures/activities remains the
same, an activity that generates profit! Free flow of information,
information products etc all should result in increased revenues, more
market controls, more profits, period.

I am trying to understand this whole debate in another context that
may seem irrelevant. I know there is a significant difference in views
and opinions between CS actors from developed and developing nations.
Many don't have direction. Many cannot convince even their own policy
makers about who should control their Internet or even the fact that
can the Internet be controlled or not in the first place.

We here in Pakistan have a mixed feeling as well because pluralism and
tolerance stand at cross roads with the emergence and penetration of
the Internet in our lives. My region recently implemented a very large
ban on over 150,000 websites/addresses termed as
objectionable/pornographic content. To this end, this region is
strictly looking at more controls and access denial and this is being
done by the authorities with a great deal of citizen support and
requests. It remains that this process was not shared or input invited
from a broader audience or multistakeholder consultations. This is
single sided decision making that is actually prevalent in other areas
of governance in our society.

This filtering does not affect Pakistani citizens in any direct manner
but still its a display of unaccountable and non-transparent authority
that has been evident in the recent past across many other types of
content political or non-political. The question here is, when this
region has no direct role in the content produced and made available
to its citizens, or, when most of this information is flowing from the
US and other western countries, or, when almost none of the developing
countries have access or control over which domains are blocked
because of counterfeiting or violation of western trademarks and
products, then does it even make sense to publicize such documents and
papers by US digital corporations? They already have full control here
so whats the point?

On a separate note, it always raises an eyebrow that why Human Rights
remains a no-go-area in such papers/statements? A small example was
that during the Arab Spring in Egypt, a Google employee (though he
worked for google in the emirates) was abducted and restrained by the
Egyptian authorities...this individual was projected by media to have
played a significant role in helping gather people online and getting
the word out through facebook...and still no consideration of HR? So
its still a thin red line.......

So far, it seems like intellectual masturbation for the sake of it by
these corporations??? In a global environment where cultural diversity
and tolerance continue to remain an ever growing challenge, CS will
remain divided.....

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> The document from top global/ US digital companies (enclosed for ready ref.)
> calling for more predictable policy and legal frameworks for the emerging
> global digital economy is a rather good one in many ways.
>
> First of all, it rightly refrains from mixing social and human rights issues
> with straight forward business and trade issues. It behoves us, the human
> rights oriented civil society, also not to try to push human rights (like
> FoE) as a trade/ business issue. They are not that at all.
>
> Free digital trade over the internet, which is what this document solely
> seeks, has no more a positive relationship with human rights (even of FoE
> and communication rights variety) than free trade (including of basic
> necessities related stuff like food grain) has a positive relationship with
> alleviating poverty and hunger. The number of instances and places where
> global free trade could actually be held responsible for causing poverty and
> hunger is legend. (For instance, see Clinton's apology on Haiti at
> http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031329/bill-clinton-apologizes-haiti-effects-free-trade
> ).
>
> The framers of this document have done us a great favour in sticking to what
> they are really talking about, and not use the fig leaf of human rights and
> democracy. Lets not now beseech them to undo this good thing. Lets focus on
> what and how human rights are in reality, and how most human rights groups
> see it. Human rights precede a trade regime, they dont follow from it. And
> the distinction is dangerous to lose sight of.
>
> The second important point of the document is that it is basically seeking
> some kind of formalising of a new global order of global policies and laws
> for the emerging digital economy. The objective of the document is stated
> as: Modernize international rules and practices governing cross‐border flows
> of data and information technologies.
>
> Now that even business has asked for a new set of global rules for the
> emerging global society (after OECD, EU, US gov etc having asked for some
> such things in their policy pronouncements over the last year), it is
> perhaps time that global civil society, and IGC, may also agree that such
> new global policies and rules are needed (McTim, I again am not speaking of
> CIRs related issues). The document says clearly that
>
> "The movement of electronic information across borders is critical to
> businesses around the world, but the international rules governing flows of
> digital goods, services, data and infrastructure are incomplete...........
> Governments should work to resolve emerging legal and policy issues raised
> by cross‐border data flows."
>
> In this respect, what is perhaps most interesting and also objectionable
> about the document is how these global digital corps are blatantly calling
> for the US to take up the central rule in developing the new global policy
> paradigm (you see, it is much more about control over ICANN and IANA ). The
> document is full of exhortations like
>
> "In response, the United States should drive the development and adoption of transparent and high‐quality international rules, norms and best practices on cross-border flows of digital data and technologies....."
>
> "The U.S. Government should seek international commitments on several key objectives, including......"
>
> "In addition, the U.S.
> Government should solicit ideas and begin to develop a plurilateral framework to set a new global gold‐standard....."
>
> The document ends with the rather stern warning, "America’s trading partners
> should understand that if they do not abide by their international
> obligations, there will be consequences.".
>
> This is the new global digital regime that the global/ US digital industry
> has in mind. US, maybe with some help from other developed countries, as the
> main driver of regime shaping, and then its enforcer too. There is no reason
> provided here why US rather the UN, as the comity of all nations, should
> take the lead/central role in shaping and enforcing this new global regime.
> One can though easily surmise the reason.
>
> Now, we of the global civil society have to make up our mind on this.
> Unfortunately, most people in the IG related civil society still live in a
> strong denial of this emerging global reality. It is surprising how many
> among the IG civil society themselves seem to have little problem with US
> taking the leading and defining role in shaping and enforcing this new
> emerging regime, as it evidently is.
>
> parminder
>
> On Sunday 06 November 2011 05:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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