[discuss] JustNet Coalition contribution on Roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem for Netmundial.br
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Mar 14 17:14:46 UTC 2014
pl see inline....
On Friday 14 March 2014 06:00 PM, sivasubramanian muthusamy wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
> 1, It is interesting to note that what you have observed "Things are
> not going in the right directions with the evolution of the Internet
> vis a vis canons of equity and social justice (for instance, 10 top
> websites had respectively 25, 50 and 75 percent of the total page
> views in the US in 2000, 2005 and 2010, and things have gone
> considerably worse since)." Are these websites or networks of
> websites? Even if this data pertains to "networks of websites", it
> would be interesting, please provide a list.
I provide as the quote occurs in an IT for Change annual report "John
Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney discuss this in their commentary
on 'The Internet's Unholy Marriage to Capitalism', noting how "we are
entering a world of digital feudalism, where a handful of colossal
corporate mega-giants rule private empires.... the top 10 Web sites
accounted for 31 percent of US page views in 2001, 40 percent in 2006,
and about 75 percent in 2010..." (Monthly Review, March 2011)". Sorry my
numbers were slightly off, and the actual facts show an even worse
deterioration between 2005 and 2010.
> 2. I am also interested in learning from you if there are any
> barriers for entry for anyone from India or Brazil to publish and
> promote such a "website" and gain a traffic share. Please point me to
> any licensing barriers or growth bottlenecks for any one from the
> Global South to build such a network.
Well, one can also say, please show me any licensing barrier or growth
bottleneck for poor people to become rich and developing countries to
become developed! After all poor are poor because they are lazy and
ignorant, and developing countries are lagging because a large majority
of its people are lazy and ignorant... What has any kind of global
structural conditions to do with it, and thus where is their any role
for any kind of political approach to such issues.
I had thought that Social Darwinism was rather disreputable a social
theory to be cited in global political discourse.
> Thank you
> Sivasubramanian M
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:07 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> While we are on this subject, it may be useful for the 1Net to
> recognise that many actors do not think the ' ICANN/IANA issue'
> should be the main concern of NetMundial.... Reading the minutes
> of the recent High Level Committee meeting for NetMundial, I see
> France say this clearly, and ICANN rep agree to it.
> Now, even if we are to take that ICANN/IANA will only be half of
> the story at NetMundial, should we do some discussion on the other
> half as well? Beginning perhaps with recognizing what this other
> half is.
> I take it to the broader public policy issues related to the
> Internet which are either inherently global, like general
> jurisdictional disputes and global mass surveillance, or have very
> significant global implications, for instance, net neutrality and
> economic of personal data.
> What kind of global Internet governance mechanisms are required to
> address these pressing global issues?
> I certainly take the need for urgent addressing of these issues to
> be of much greater important than the ICANN/IANA issue. Also,
> remember that President Rousseff's UN Speech which precipitated
> matter and set us on the road to Sao Paolo had nothing to do with
> the ICANN/IANA issue and everything to do with these other issues.
> On Friday 14 March 2014 01:05 PM, parminder wrote:
>> On Tuesday 11 March 2014 05:33 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>> At 02:29 11-03-2014, parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> The preamble is the same, however the operative part is
>>>> different. It
>>>> provided a roadmap for institutional reform in global
>>>> governance. The
>>>> earlier document was about principles for Internet governance.
>>>> Happy to provide any further clarification.
>>> If one of the aims of the proposal is to help developing
>>> countries, could you please explain how it would help such a
>> Dear Moonesamy,
>> I am happy to explain...
>> To understand how the proposal
>> from Just Net Coalition helps developing countries one needs to
>> first understand 'what and who' shapes the evolution of the
>> Internet today, as the Internet itself shapes our larger social
>> structures, whereby the impact of this 'what and who' goes rather
>> far and deep...
>> To keep it brief, it is my understanding that the following key
>> political and economic forces shape the Internet today, in the
>> decreasing order of impact;
>> Extravagant profit motives of a few global corporation,
>> almost all US based;
>> The laws and policies of the US, which are enforced, overtly
>> and subtly, on these global corporation; and,
>> Policy framework of some clubs of rich countries, like the
>> OECD and CoE (for instance, OCED's principles for Internet
>> policy making).
>> There is huge nexus between 1 and 2, which together constitute
>> the most powerful, in fact, quite overwhelming, force shaping the
>> Internet today. Meanwhile, the US is largely able to bull-dodge
>> its way with regard to 3 above as well.
>> Apart from the above, Internet technical standards and critical
>> resource management bodies, also have a strong impact. These
>> bodies have swung between doing extremely good work to frequent
>> capture by the above corporate interests. In my view, their
>> public policy oversight while important is relatively the lesser
>> problem right now as compared to other issues listed above.
>> Now, before we move forward to frame a response to the basic
>> question you asked, 'how does the Just Net Coalition's (JNC)
>> help developing countries', we need to form some level of
>> agreement on two propositions.
>> The above is largely the right picture of the forces that are
>> shaping the Internet today.
>> Things are not going in the right directions with the
>> evolution of the Internet vis a vis canons of equity and
>> social justice (for instance, 10 top websites had
>> respectively 25, 50 and 75 percent of the total page views in
>> the US in 2000, 2005 and 2010, and things have gone
>> considerably worse since).
>> If you strongly disagree with either of the above two
>> propositions, JNC's proposal will make no sense to you. But if
>> you do agree, there is a lot of ground for us to look at remedial
>> political solutions. And I am ready to take up such a discussion,
>> admitting that our proposed solution may only be one among many
>> possible, and even perhaps not the best one. Our group, in its
>> collective wisdom, thought that what is needed in the current
>> context is an counter-magnetic field to the highly dominant
>> forces today, that would be created by developing an anchor point
>> inside the UN system which begins to undertake normative
>> discussions on issues of Internet policies, and where needed
>> comes up with higher norms and principles (as OECD has come up
>> with), policy frameworks, and as and when needed, binding
>> conventions and treaties.As happens with every sector in the UN,
>> it will be much more about developing higher norms and
>> principles, much fewer policy frameworks and rather infrequent
>> conventions or treaties....
>> Such a counter magnetic field alone can even begin balancing the
>> lopsidedness of the current political and economic model around
>> the Internet, and it goes to reason that such a balancing will
>> serve the interests of developing countries, in fact of all
>> marginalized groups everywhere in the world.I hope you agree.
>>> S. Moonesamy
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss