[governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg

Sat Nov 17 12:17:56 EST 2012

I only quoted the maawg example as, well, an example.

Any organization, especially one with a multinational presence, will tailor its public policy efforts to ensure a stable and open operating environment for itself.  And in the case of Internet content providers, this generally (though there are always exceptions) boils down to making common cause with civil society in the context of online freedom and network neutrality.  

Telcos with huge amounts of infrastructure might well take a different view when it comes to a question of net neutrality, but they too would tend to make common cause with civil society and content providers when it comes to advocating free speech.

Most of what industry (and civil society) deem to be common ground generally gets codified into one of several best practices and codes of conduct that become generally accepted among similar organisations worldwide.  Some of it even does, to address your gmail example, include a set of best practices to respect an Internet users rights and determine how and in what circumstances an isp or email provider can deny him service, not to mention best practices for customer service.

Cross border enforcement of legislation is definitely possible.  Parminder likes to disparage the council of Europe Budapest convention on cybercrime, but it is, at a basic level, a way to rationalise mutual legal assistance treaties that countries, even those that may not have signed the Budapest convention, have with each other.  Then there is the national link concept that a country tends to use to determine whether its law applies to a given situation, and the concept of dual criminality, which prevents a Thai warrant against someone who disparages their king become easily enforceable against, say, a British subject who is outside the borders of Thailand.

--srs (iPad)

On 17-Nov-2012, at 22:31, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> To bring this back to the WCIT/ITU context, the issue isn't direct nastiness (illegality) via spam or whatever, there are in most instances enforceable national laws to cover this and the self-regulation is for the most part a way of keeping national regulators off the corporate backs.
>  
> The issue is precisely in the area of standards and policies for those corporations and countries with global and transborder reach where national policies/regulations are essentially unenforceable but where because of industry or other dominance (including what is in practice standards "capture") there is no effective way of pursuing a public interest. My own example which I keep trundling out is a fairly direct indicator of some of the issues from a consumer protection perspective and I think a reasonable example where some sort of means for enforcing a global public interest including through transparency and accountabliity is required.
>  
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/
>  
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/gmail-hell2-an-epilogue-they-are-the-borg-and-they-are-too-big-to-be-allowed-to-fail/
>  
> M
>  
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:37 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg
>  
> As far as I have seen in industry associations like maawg (www.maawg.org) there is a substantial push towards best practice in areas such as ethical email marketing that is respectful of user privacy, besides the various other practices evolved on security, malware etc.   
>  
> And that best practice is, sort of, enforced in that marketers who don't adhere to that code of practice don't get to become members, or on previous occasions, have had ther membership revoked.
>  
> So, this does occur and is not unknown in an industry context.
>  
> It would be equally naive to only bank on industry goodwill, which is why a regulatory system, and a transparent complaints / redressal process are essential,   That, and informed civil society that doesn't see industry as the enemy.
>  
> Note: I have had my share of arguments with various civil society people and groups on that account, simply because making points without demonising the groups they make those points against seems to be a dying art.   Like Susan Crawford describing DPI with terms like "inside job", or the eff comparing spam filtering to blackmail and extortion.  http://www.mail-archive.com/silklist@lists.hserus.net/msg20400.html for several such examples.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 17-Nov-2012, at 21:45, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Of course, what you are saying is precisely what is being said in the
> current deregulation push in US telecoms i.e. that corporate actors can be
> trusted (in a deregulated context) to act in accordance with the public
> interest (with the consequences that Susan Crawford is pointing to in her
> piece noted bleow...
> 
> You might note in passing that CS in the context of the BestBits discussion
> indicated in the context of the anticipated revision of the ITR's and a
> requirement that  " the framing of public policy is the pursuit of the
> public interest" and that this statement was signed onto by numerous CS (and
> other actors). http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:41 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went
> Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg
> 
> There is no such thing as a global public interest, it is too utopian a
> concept.
> 
> A shared consensus on best practices and acceptable standards of behaviour /
> codes of conduct are about the closest you will have in real life and
> outside wcit, igf etc slide decks.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 17-Nov-2012, at 20:48, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why?
>  
> The discussions around the WCIT/are overrun with precisely those kinds
> of generalizations.
>  
> But it is a serious question, if we believe that there is a global
> public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent
> that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global)
> framework will that representation best take place (the market place,
> the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't
> see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even
> mention it in this context.)
>  
> M
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:39 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones
> Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg
>  
> michael gurstein [17/11/12 06:00 -0800]:
> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public
> interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..?
>  
> "civil society"?  also note "act effectively"
>  
> Generalizing would be a grave mistake here.
>  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121117/24b704a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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