[governance] FW: [IP] Google's Lawyers Work Behind the Scenes to Carry the Day - NYTimes.com

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Historic role is an ongoing interest in and a series of policy briefs prepared on this area

Do note that this proposed model is multistakeholder in nature while what you keep calling for, regulation, most definitely is not.

Why is the OECD and / or the usa hypocritical when explicitly endorsing multistakeholderism, while the idea of a civil society organization (thankfully with what appears to be zero consensus from any other than a few others)  calling for increased government control and oversight of the Internet is supposed to pass unnoticed?

--srs (iPad)

On 06-Jan-2013, at 12:49, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> Interestingly, from an OECD document, 'The role Internet intermediaries in advancing public policy objectives'
> 
> "Articulating common international principles for Internet intermediary policy would be timely. Participants were cautiously optimistic that in some areas there has been enough experience and work around the topic of Internet intermediaries by policymakers, the private sector and civil society, to identify and discuss high-level policy principles for the future. Given the global nature of the Internet and the cross- border services that Internet intermediaries often provide, an international convergence of approaches for the development of policies involving Internet intermediaries was viewed as essential, to provide effective guidance to the business sector. The OECD was identified as being able to help the emergence of such principles and to support their diffusion."
> 
> Even more interestingly, this is what the US Ambassador to the OECD has to say (emphasis added, below as well as above)
> 
> "Mrs. Kornbluh further noted that the OECD is ideally suited to discuss the role of Internet intermediaries because of its historic mandates and ongoing streams of work. Recalling that the OECD is the place where regulators come to share best practices and to develop agreements, guidelines and conventions."
> Hope, the day will come when civil society will take time off from their preoccupation with demonizing developing countires, and call the bluff of the US and its allies with regard to such deep hypocrisies - who gave them this 'historic role' ???? And why should not a UN based CIRP like body ( which is more multistakeholder than OECD) not 'discuss the role of Internet intermediaries' rather than these self- appointed historic role bearers?
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday 06 January 2013 12:25 PM, parminder wrote:
>> 
>> On Sunday 06 January 2013 12:51 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> I've blogged about this at:
>>> I’m wondering though whether the issue concerning Google is rather misplaced when included under matters concerning free speech/free expression.  Whether a search algorithm propelling a robotic process of information selection would be covered by free speech “rights” is something for legal scholars to ponder at their leisure.
>>>  
>>> I’m wondering rather whether the appropriate rights/freedoms venue under which to assess Google’s activities might not more appropriately fall under “freedom of thought” rather than “freedom of speech” i.e. that it concerns the way we know things or our capacity to know certain things (and not have the means to know (or believe) other things).
>> 
>> I agree that google with more than 90 percent control over the search segment of the Internet represents an epistemological window on the world, and thus very clearly represents a core public interest function.... And this has serious implications if google is left free to manipulate its algorithms as it wishes to. The FTC judgement is a big disappointment. But then maybe this is more of a media regulation thing rather than a trade regulation one, and FTC will obviously look only at trade issue (on which aspect too I find its judgement inadequate).
>> 
>> Internet defines new realities, and that requires new governance paradigms.... Above is a good instance of how looking at the Internet just through one perspective (trade law) to the exclusion       of others can be grossly harmful to public interest. 
>> 
>> We require neutrality principles for Internet intermediaries, and we need them now. Hope civil society can do something about it. 
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>>>  
>>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/is-google-like-gas-or-like-steel-neither-it-is-like-nernsts-third-law-of-thermodynamics-or-the-nicene-creed/
>>>  
>>> http://wp.me/pJQl5-ab
>>>  
>>> M
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 2:00 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Google's Lawyers Work Behind the Scenes to Carry the Day - NYTimes.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> A very interesting take on FTC's decisions on google
>>> 
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/opinion/is-google-like-gas-or-like-steel.html?_r=0 
>>> 
>>> The article raises the right question - whether some parts of our digital environment deserve to be treated as public utilities - due to (1) the extent of monopoly and (2) the very important 'public function(s)' being performed. 
>>> 
>>> I do not agree with the conclusion of the authors that any kind of search neutrality obligations would hurt free             expression objectives. To me, the contrary is true.
>>> 
>>> How much ever I disagree with its conclusions, the article touches the deeper issues pertaining to search for the right paradigms that should inform Internet governance.... Most commentaries around WCIT, and even the almost solo fixation with multistakeholderism, just scratch the surface, often misleadingly. The real issues are somewhere else and, unfortunately, have not received the needed attention of civil society.
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday 04 January 2013 08:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] 
>>> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:35 AM
>>> To: ip
>>> Subject: [IP] Google’s Lawyers Work Behind the Scenes to Carry the Day - NYTimes.com
>>>  
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/technology/googles-lawyers-work-behind-the-scenes-to-carry-the-day.html?hp
>>>  
>>> note last paragraph
>>> Archives  | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130106/1aff4a5c/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