[governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....

[McTim]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  Dear Lee,
>
> The issue of a secret / proprietary search algorithm that may have
> commercial and political implications contra to public interest, is clearly
> out of the remit of 'technical management of day to day issues', which a
> body like ICANN needs to concern itself with. I never mentioned ICANN at
> all in my mails for that reason. Issues such as this (or illegal sharing of
> private information by Vodafone with the spy agency of the UK Government,
> or that of evasion of tax by Internet businesses) would come under the
> remit of the 'global public policy' making which is beyond the remit of
> ICANN.
>


Not to conflate issues, but ICANN does have remit re: searchable WHOS.  Of
course, they don't oversee search in general, but that doesn't mean that it
needs an "overseer" beyond what Lee pointed out from competition
authorities.

I would suggest that ALL search engines have "commercial and political
implications" that may align with "the public interest" or may align with
private interests.




>
> What I was seeking was a process of global norms building
>



We have global norms, e.g., anyone can set up their own search facility.



> , and if found necessary, setting up of global  policy frameworks,
> recognising the extraordinary public interest nature of the search service,
> (search being the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge
> for all of us).
>

So ALL search engines would be regulated under such a policy framework?




>  There are parallels that we can take note of; for instance, in the case
> of medicines - the composition of medicines may be sought to be protected
> by pharmaceutical companies as their trade secret, but this is not allowed,
> it is mandatory to provide the complete details of the composition on the
> packaging itself; while on the other hand, such a standard may not apply to
> Coke (as that is not considered to be of such high public interest).
>
>
For consumer safety BOTH Coke and drug makers have to list ingredients,
neither has to tell the steps in the processes of manufacturing AFAIK.

In any case, search isn't something we ingest, like drugs or coke.




> Existing UN bodies do take responsibility for developing global norms,
> policy frameworks## / standards of various kinds, WHO for drugs, UNESCO
> for  education and  cultural goods. Often norms building can go into treaty
> making processes, such as UNESCO's treaty on cultural goods, whereby
> cultural goods are considered of special public interest and need not fall
> into normal world trade regulatory frameworks. As per this treaty, for
> instance, countries can have quotas on the number of Hollywood films that
> are allowed to be imported in  a year. Similar global norms building, and
> treaties are required
>


desired by a very few, not required.


>  to ensure that the current situation where large US based IT
> trans-nationals are compromising public interest for their commercial gains
> (and political aims of the USG) does not persist. (The extra-ordinary
> hypocrisy in their coming  together at WCIT to thwart the possibilities of
> democratisation of the Internet is what I alluded to in my recent post).
>
>
The above assumes that democratisation of the Internet was what was
attempted at WCIT, this is asserting a fact not in evidence.





> The Tunis Agenda envisaged that some of these complex issues would be
> dealt with under the 'enhanced co-operation' processes, which unfortunately
> has been stone-walled by those who have vested interests in the status
> quo.  'Multi-Stakeholderism' has spectacularly failed to make even the
> smallest progress in promoting such public interest
>


Your vision of enhanced cooperation is different than mine....is not what
is going on in Sao Paolo "enhanced cooperation" as well?

MSism has given us the Internet that we have today.  I think that is a
SPECTACULAR success in promoting public interests.




> , since it allows the powerful to stalemate any move in that direction.
> Many of us know how just having a workshop at the IGF on enhanced
> cooperation was so difficult.
>
> The current situation, as I pointed out is untenable, it privileges a
> powerful (and criminal as per Snowden) minority. Global civil society IG
> space like the IGC must work for the development of norms that promote the
> public interest and counter this power.
>
> As a starting point, I would like to call for an agreement on the list
>


I think you have already had your answer in the negative.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140321/9deab5a5/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