[governance] need for regulation ....

[parminder]

On Monday 10 March 2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.

Hi Carlos,

We may differ on issues and principles here, but I assure you that there 
is no misunderstanding. Our position is based on considerable thinking.

What is entirely left to the private sector, what gets provided as a 
public or social good, and what gets closely regulated even though 
provided privately are decisions that societies taken on the basis of 
many considerations. What was earlier a private good can become a public 
good as times change. Prior to the industrial revolution, education was 
considered a rather private good - it was either a matter of some very 
exclusive privilege of the highest classes, or consisted of skills 
transferred within occupational groups like guilds. With the industrial 
revolution, many changes took place in social structures, in structure 
of family, work force and so on.... Soon later, education begun to see 
as seen as a kind of public good, and then as  a human right in the UN 
Declaration of Human Rights...

Sorry for the detour but, similar basic changes are taking place vis a 
vis the ongoing information/Internet revolution. One important element 
of this transformation are some new kinds of socio-technical platforms 
that mediated a huge swathe of social activities, which could span a 
whole sector - like global knowledge organising, instant media, general 
social networking, and so on. Such platforms have the character of 
natural monopolies - a fact that is proven. All this present a very new 
situation, and accordingly an assessment has to be made in public 
interest of the need and degree of regulation of such platforms. Also, 
whether some of these services also need to be provided as public goods, 
or at least proactive public support (including with funds)  given for 
building local and/ or non-profit alternatives. But the least that can 
certainly be said is that a completely unregulated commercial offering 
of these platforms, as huge global monopolies, and largely escaping 
regulation because of their global nature, coupled with extra-ordinary 
economic (and increasingly, political) might, is not not a sustainable 
situation. We can accept it now and take remedial measures, or do it 
after considerable social damage is done.

(In fact, as you say, since these services are free, they do not even 
constitute a commercial service agreement since no payment is made for 
them. Whereby we can also say that there can be no consumer rights vis a 
vis these services. Would you agree to such a proposition? )

All of which simply points to the fact that we are facing very new and 
unique situation in an increasingly Internet-mediated world. We may have 
to visit our policy and regulatory paradigms anew, and we should show 
the political openness to do so.

Now, we may still disagree on which layers of the Internet requirer 
regulation and which not, but I just wanted to clarify that our position 
is well thought out and not a result as a mis- understanding.

regards

parminder

>
> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
> risk and will.
>
> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
> can demand consumer and other rights.
>
> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>
> IMHO
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>> the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>> nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>> users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>
>> source -
>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html


-------------- 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