[governance] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Feb 16 01:39:19 EST 2015


On Sunday 15 February 2015 11:50 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long 
> time - years - this community should pay more attention to trade.

Dear Carolina,

Thanks for your agreement. Civil society activists should of course be 
everywhere to defend public interest, and often it is only a question of 
resources, a point to which I will return.

However, the main thrust of my email was somewhat different. /*The 
question is, does civil society want to see the Internet and its 
governance being framed primarily in terms of commerce and trade, or do 
we want them to framed primarily in terms of a new global infrastructure 
for our social interactions, media, democratic participation, community 
building, and so on.*/ Such a distinction is extremely important at this 
formative stage of and Internet-mediated society. And it matters  a lot 
what the primary framing of an issue is... The most benign trade 
negotiators would still think of Internet and data as commodities, that 
is their training and occupational requirement.

The US thrust the first Internet policy framework upon the world, in the 
form of the 'Framework for global e-commerce' 
<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/read.html>which peremptorily 
framed the Internet in a primary commercial role,
as against its role as a revolutionary social media that people 
instinctively saw it primarily and first-of-all as. But at that time, 
with the Internet having developed mostly in the US, there was still 
some logic for the US to set the global Internet agenda, although a 
primary commercial definition cannot be considered to be in the best 
interest of the US public either.

But in 2015, there is no reason to allow the US to determine the global 
Internet agenda, especially when it is such that goes against global 
public Internet. Why should we agree to a primary trade and commerce 
framing of the Internet and its governance? That is the main point that 
I am raising.

First of all we need to decide what do want to be the primary framing of 
the Internet and IG. In this regard do sometime compare WSIS documents - 
starting from Geneva declaration of principles to the Tunis agenda - to 
the current secretive US led trade discussions that is developing the IG 
regime for us. You will see how, when we take a larger social view of 
the Internet, we get a very different framing for Internet governance - 
very different initial norms and principles. I will not pursue this line 
of argument any further, but it is worth giving a close and sustained look.

Once, we have decided what we want the primary framing of the Internet 
and IG to be - and I am sure it will be as a social media, with 
attendant specific characterisations, before an commercial platform - we 
have to figure out what should civil society do about it.

And here we could differ, but my view is that to pursue such a vision in 
any kind of effective manner, and to be able to see any real impact, we 
need a global IG body and venue that looks at the Internet first as how 
most people look at it - as a revolutionary social media. Here I cannot 
check myself from quoting that very powerful 'social' definition of the 
Internet. "Internet is actually the name of a social condition: the fact 
that everyone in the network society is connected directly, without 
intermediation, to everyone else."/*A basic larger social framing of the 
Internet and its governance at such a Internet centred venue, with 
strong civil society participation, would lay the norms and principles 
within which then the role of the Internet in trade, IP, security etc 
can and should be developed at the respective bodies of relevant 
competence. Such a meta or layered treatment of Internet governance is 
most important  if we are to realise, even partly, the Internet of the 
popular, somewhat idealistic, conception. */

I know that immediately brings in the bogeyman of UN control of the 
Internet. I, however, cannot see how a new Internet governance space can 
control the Internet any more than, for instance, the UNESCO has 
controlled global education and sciences... There can be no doubt that 
any 'control' over education and sciences globally is at least as 
pernicious as that of the Internet! But to my best knowledge that has 
not happened despite UNESCO existing for many decades now. On the other 
hand, UNESCO has contributed so much to education and sciences, and 
would have contributed much more if some superpowers had not played 
games with its funding.

However, what one sees is that much of the active civil society has been 
rather lukewarm if not resistant to WSIS like global activity, much less 
an actual IG platform for normative development in this area. No one got 
up to support the developing countries when they were so persistently 
asking, for the last 2 years, for a full WSIS style prepcoms based WSIS 
plus 10, which would in that case almost certainly have been driven from 
Geneva as WSIS was. Even now, I see little enthusiasm for WSIS plus 10, 
which is looked upon as something that we should see safely pass rather 
than expect anything from it.  And of course any talk about a new IG 
specific governance venue is rather violently opposed (while WEF, 
unfortunately, is being supported through the NMI to make big-boys' 
deals based norms and guidelines in the IG space!).

Convenient and nice-sounding terms like 'distributed governance' are 
employed without any clear meaning or reference. Is this about the 
technical/ operational levels of IG - the ICANN stuff? But then almost 
all of us agree that that is very fine and should indeed be sanctified 
by a global agreement. But arent real IG issues elsewhere - /*what does 
distributed governance mean in terms of these real issues - does it not 
mean that trade elements of the Internet should be dealt with in trade 
talks, without any Internet-specific overall treatment and norms 
informing such talks?*/ Now, if distributed IG, in terms of non tech IG 
issues, does not means this, what does it mean? I will like to hear from 
proponents of distributed governance an response to it (and for the nth 
time, with regard to non-tech IG area, the real important IG stuff) .

I see 'distributed governance' as a nice-sounding term - btw, very often 
used by the incumbent, the US - to window-dress status quo. I see it 
either as meaningless, or simply as saying - let the Internet be 
discussed and captured by trade talks. And that is what is happening.

Lastly, I said I will come back to the issue of resources: Not only is 
it structurally very deficient not to have an Internet and IG centred 
governance venue, such a so-called 'distributed' arrangement challenges 
most the participation of the least resourced. We all know that there is 
indeed a subject, a discipline, a field of activism, etc, around the 
Internet (one wonders why it is not claimed that these too should not be 
'Internet-centred' but distributed?!). One Internet focussed governance 
venue would possibly allow real participation - however difficult that 
in any case is - of a large number of activists in developing the norms, 
principles and some overall policies about the Internet. But of course 
the status quo ists want no such thing. It is simply not possible for 
these activist groups to be present in all the small and big, known and 
unannounced, places where the real architecture of this most vital 
social medium is currently being built. Please do not blame them for it. 
Blame the structures, and perhaps blame those who do not advocate and 
fight for the right structures.

parminder

> The problem is where the rules are actually made and are biding 
> (=trade negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism 
> and even worts no transparency or means of real accountability.
> We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where 
> internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we 
> lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
> TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its 
> position documents.
> But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not 
> part of this trade efforts ....
> US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make 
> rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and 
> need access on commodities
> It is a joke
>
>
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
>
>     How US sees trade rules being basically the rules for the
>     Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for
>     global trade, and so on.
>
>     And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the
>     blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
>
>     Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose
>     the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters,
>     and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against
>     unbridled 'open' trade!)
>
>     Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is
>     the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by
>     derivation, the Internet rules.
>
>     And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many
>     of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and
>     somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent
>     across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the
>     WEF is a good symbol.
>
>     The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest
>     of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to
>     state theirs.
>
>     parminder
>     ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>     Remarks
>     Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
>     Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International
>     Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and
>     Business Affairs
>     U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of
>     Commerce in Latin America
>     Los Angeles, CA
>     February 11, 2015
>
>
>       Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
>
>
>       * original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
>
>     Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And
>     trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of
>     Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is
>     enabling economic and social development around the world on a
>     revolutionary scale.
>
>     But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around
>     the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of
>     stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language
>     preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s
>     potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home
>     and abroad.
>
>     As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to
>     3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant
>     economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock
>     the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open,
>     promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and
>     set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade
>     agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending
>     trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming
>     months and years will provide that kind of protection. These
>     agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and
>     data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the
>     architecture that has empowered the Internet and global
>     communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is
>     in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move
>     forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many
>     reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global
>     communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.
>
>     Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance
>     Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade
>     negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet
>     represents /the shipping lane/ for 21st Century goods and
>     services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and
>     driving economic growth and job creation all around the country.
>     U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but
>     outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing
>     opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has
>     the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the
>     Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
>
>     Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with
>     nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the
>     preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the
>     transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices
>     of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
>
>     If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the
>     Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
>     Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free
>     flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to
>     authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated
>     a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open
>     Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every
>     opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global
>     Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
>
>     Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a
>     threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government,
>     just last month, pressured social media companies to block access
>     to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China,
>     authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In
>     addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and
>     punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities,
>     such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese
>     people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese
>     Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its
>     market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action.
>     These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and
>     they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
>
>     The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and
>     e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than
>     ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities
>     by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment
>     while raising labor, environment, and other important standards
>     across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating
>     their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of
>     commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to
>     meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade
>     agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the
>     environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights
>     or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers
>     and our businesses at a disadvantage.
>
>     We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large
>     alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of
>     access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone,
>     American Internet companies and their global community of users
>     contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S.
>     GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet
>     is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications
>     platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services,
>     and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.
>
>     Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather,
>     businesses produce product components and provide services, many
>     of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive
>     globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the
>     United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must
>     build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated
>     platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in
>     Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
>     we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set
>     the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
>
>     We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open
>     markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate
>     and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open
>     Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade
>     Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that
>     underpin the Internet today.
>
>     As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the
>     solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our
>     progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open
>     markets is the position most consistent with our progressive
>     tradition and values.
>
>     It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace,
>     therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible
>     program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points.
>     Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of
>     all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of
>     trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and
>     associating themselves for its maintenance.”
>
>     It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the
>     first grant of trade negotiating authority.
>
>     In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962,
>     it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from
>     increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our
>     workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit
>     from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to
>     lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit
>     our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an
>     increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an
>     increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries
>     will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer
>     competition with the industries of other nations for an even
>     greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive
>     system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
>
>     And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our
>     tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most
>     recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small
>     businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today,
>     our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay
>     their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write
>     the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put
>     our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let
>     that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the
>     playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade
>     promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new
>     trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are
>     also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
>
>     Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in
>     promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these
>     ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal.
>     It is critical to our future and contained within the language we
>     are asking Congress to approve.
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150216/bacb0c8b/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


More information about the Governance mailing list