[governance] US requests China website censoring details

Thu Oct 20 06:31:40 EDT 2011

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:05 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Sala
>
> This is indeed an interesting development.  During the WSIS and thereafter,
> WTO staff and other trade people were rather equivocal when some of us
> argued that since the multilateral trade regimes apply to Internet commerce
> they constitute a form of global Internet governance.  They didn't want
> trade policy issues drawn into the IG space, inter alia because like the IPR
> people involved in WIPO & WTO they preferred to keep these solely within
> their institutional space.
>

Yes I thought that it was an interesting evolution. What is equally
interesting is that at the end of the day trade positions and interests
exist to benefit countries and governments are finding that they have to
reconsider certain positions when global corporates/multinationals can
easily choose to be established in jurisdictions that not only give optimum
return but where they can freely carry out their respective business
objectives. What to me is exciting about the evolution is how this global
borderless thing called the internet and with companies like Google that has
caches and presence all over the world, they would demand for the free flow
of their services without hinderance, ie. removal of barriers.

To me this is where it gets interesting and I think in months to come La
Rue's Report as Special Rapporteur on Access will be analysed in a different
light. It will most certainly be interesting to see economic rights and
political rights interplay and how the balance is achieved.

>  But over the past couple years a growing number of trade analysts have
> begun to view FOE restrictions as trade restrictions, and Google & industry
> groups like the Computer & Communications Industry Association have picked
> up and pressed the argument.
>
One of the goals of the Taskforce on Internet Telecom Infrastructure and
Services (ITIS) which is part of the International Chamber of Commerce is to
"Promote liberalization of trade in telecommunications and information
technology markets with the World Trade Organization (WTO), with other
international organizations and with national authorities. " See:
http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id9260/index.html

> This might present a little bit of a conundrum for folks who are both
> proponents of FOE and opponents of the WTO system…
>
Interesting indeed :)

>
> China's restrictions on foreign-based websites & related operations may
> well be a violation of the GATS if its schedule of commitments doesn't carve
> them out under the relevant modes of supply like via networks or commercial
> presence.  China could try to argue that the restrictions are legal under
> the General Exceptions escape clause that allows measures necessary "to
> protect public morals or to maintain public order," but that works only if
> it can be shown that the services pose a genuine and sufficiently
> serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and the measures are
> nondiscriminatory and not a disguised restriction on trade in services.  If
> this goes to a dispute settlement panel, an important legal precedent,
> potentially backed by the option of trade sanctions, could ensue.
>
> Whether anyone would want to take the risk of acting on that option, and
> whether it'd even prove necessary, are other questions.
>

>  A couple years ago the  Appellate Body ruled against China in a dispute
> with the US over the importation of material publications and audiovisual
> products, finding that China's actions violated its accession agreement, the
> GATT, and the GATS, and specifically said that China had failed to show its
> actions were necessary to protect public morals.
>

Interesting.

> I don't recall that this gave rise to sanctions though—I think they
> undertook some relaxation of restrictions in their distribution system.  Who
> knows if that could be a precedent…
>
And time will certainly tell :)

>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I read with interest the following:
>
> US requests China website censoring details
>
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10760429
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111020/2994e195/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