[governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Improving User Rights

Sat Nov 17 13:30:17 EST 2012

Dear Michael,

this story is a good example for what is needed in terms of operationalizing rights of internet users, which is the topic of a currently ongoing  Council of Europe Committee, which works on a "compendium" of such rights for internet user rights.

A minimum of basic services may be more than a contractual consumer rights issue, when the user practically has no alternative.

If You have a problem with Your mobile phone or internet service provider there is a hotline, maybe You have to pay something, but You get a service.

Companies like Google present themselves as user-oriented, but there is a need to identify and provide minimum services in order not to be cut off from Your freedom of expression.

Suggestions from this list are welcome!

Best regards

Wolfgang Benedek

Institute for International Law and International Relations
University of Graz
Universitätsstraße 15, A4
A-8010 Graz
Tel.: +43/316/380/3411
Fax: +43/316/380/9455

Von: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Datum: Samstag, 17. November 2012 18:01
An: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' <suresh at hserus.net<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>>
Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Betreff: RE: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg

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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/ca34d051/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