[IRP] An article by Jonathan Zittrain relevant to our work
Parminder
parminder
Sat May 2 11:59:29 EEST 2009
Hi All
Allow me to throw in my two cents too :)
I think the difference between what Khaled says and Emily's response is
not of degrees nor even of ideal/ long-term versus pragmatic/
actionable. The discussion, built on Zittrain's article, underlies some
much deeper structural changes which are taking place in our societies,
and our positions vis a vis them.
Corporate social responsibility is a term from within the
business-market ecology while the governance requirements called for by
Khaled belong to a very different realm. Both have their place, but
trying to substitute one for the other is the issue that Khaled seems to
be very concerned about.
For instance, Zittrain rightly points to the momentousness of the move
by Facebook to give 'voting rights' to its customers, and to have a
charter of rights and responsibilities. However, this is still
principally in a business/corporate to consumer framework. Similar to
what any company does to figure out what its customers really want and
then act accordingly. Now, new digital monopolistic corporates are in a
very different situation no doubt. This leads them to act differently -
they can be relatively more 'transparent' with their marketing research
(voting on what customers want) and allow customers to co-design to the
extent it increases their profitability. They also need to be more
pro-active because the danger of regulatory attention getting directed
to their monopolistic power is ever present, and ever growing.
It is therefore useful to analyze new forms of corporate behavior and
customer relationship management in the very new and unprecedented
situation of almost pure monopolies in the digital spaces, also giving
all the credit of smart business practices where it is due. However,
what is significant is the framework of analysis we use - the right one
for this purpose is a business-customer framework of analysis, though
one will admit media-consumer kind of frameworks as well, or some
hybrids in between. However to proffer a citizenship framework that
Zittrain's article does , in my view, is a very dangerous shift, and has
strong ideological underpinnings (as does this present analysis that I
make, the ideological basis of which I mention in the next paragraph).
Such a framework has the impact of supporting the efforts of these
digital monopolies to keep at bay any legitimate regulation, which is
done by political institutions to which citizenship frameworks apply.
One appreciates that the new digital reality impacts the basic
categories of what is legitimately political and public in the new
global context, and these shifts too should be analysed. However, I do
not think that that the basic differences between a relational matrix
based business-consumer and media-consumer relationships on one hand and
citizenship on the other has undergone any change. This difference is
based on values (or ideologies) of equality, equity and social justice,
and unless we shift vis a vis these values the distinction between the
above two forms of social relationships remains solidly in place. To
keep this distinction is important, even more so when many social
categories are fast shifting in the digital quicksand.
It is this context I understand Khaled's caution against trusting any
'invisible hands' to do our governance for us, regarding which the
financial meltdown offers clear lessons, and the need to keep looking
for real and legitimate governance processes for new digital spaces and
realities, that are built on concepts of citizenship and democracy.
Parminder
Khaled Fattal wrote:
> you are welcome,
>
> If we only focus on what is achievable (awareness only) in being
> realistic, the most we will accomplish is only awareness. Not bad!
> but not good enough in my book based on the pending challenges ahead
> of us I laid in my previous emails.
>
> This challenge I put not only to this group but to all stakeholders
> who will be impacted if change does not happen and very soon.
>
> my cent and a half Winking smile emoticon
>
> khaled
>
> *From:* Emily Laidlaw <mailto:emily at laidlaw.eu>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2009 11:05 AM
> *To:* Khaled Fattal <mailto:khaledfattal at hotmail.com> ; Bertrand de La
> Chapelle <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com> ; Max Senges
> <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* irp <mailto:Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [IRP] An article by Jonathan Zittrain relevant to our work
>
> Thanks Khaled. I thought I wasn't reading what you said quite right.
> And I do agree with you with respect to focussing on actionable
> results. My work at the moment is the tricky arena of corporate
> social responsibility for democracy-related human rights such as
> freedom of expression and privacy, and though I wish to jump right
> into discussing these issues in depth, I might be inclined to agree
> with you that at this stage raising awareness is the more realistic,
> and achievable, goal.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From:* Khaled Fattal [mailto:khaledfattal at hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* 01 May 2009 10:57
> *To:* Emily Laidlaw; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Max Senges
> *Cc:* irp
> *Subject:* Re: [IRP] An article by Jonathan Zittrain relevant to our work
>
>
>
> Dear Emily,
>
>
>
> what I meant is what you expressed as your view. the only difference/
> addition is I would make our focus on coming up with actionable
> results and making that the goal instead of simply being satisfied
> with only raising awareness
>
>
>
> khaled
>
>
>
> *From:* Emily Laidlaw <mailto:emily at laidlaw.eu>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:10 PM
>
> *To:* Khaled Fattal <mailto:khaledfattal at hotmail.com> ; Bertrand de La
> Chapelle <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com> ; Max Senges
> <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* irp <mailto:Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [IRP] An article by Jonathan Zittrain relevant to our work
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I was away for a few weeks and return to some very interesting and
> important discussions. Khaled, I wasn't sure from your email whether
> you think we should hold off on pushing the issue of corporate and
> individual social responsibility and international oversight of such
> responsibility to allow systems to develop organically, or whether you
> think this is important to address now.
>
>
>
> My view is that, particularly concerning human rights, we should be
> having discussions about corporate and individual social
> responsibilities now, and that the IGF is an important place for such
> discussions. How to balance the fine line between that
> self-regulatory ethos of the Internet that nurtures the innovations
> and behaviours that has made the Internet such a revolutionary space,
> and the need for accountability and consistency at an international
> level is difficult (and what an understatement). What is clear,
> however, is that it is not just states that are in powerful positions
> to protect or hinder digital human rights. If we do not want to use
> the strong arm of the law from the outset, we should be discussing
> corporate and individual responsibility and efforts such as the
> initiative by Facebook that Bertrand mentioned.
>
>
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From:* irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Khaled Fattal
> *Sent:* 30 April 2009 12:29
> *To:* Bertrand de La Chapelle; Max Senges
> *Cc:* irp
> *Subject:* Re: [IRP] An article by Jonathan Zittrain relevant to our work
>
>
>
> Dear Bertrand and all,
>
>
>
> Wolfgang and others who raise the issue of social responsibility
> are absolutely right to raise these issues I have been pushing on this
> for the last 27 years. I think Bertrand's suggestion is an excellent
> one and I support it fully, but I would also add that coming out with
> actionable results will need to be the goal.
>
>
>
> However, I would also add that we ought to table raising the awareness
> and the need to factor social and corporate
> responsibility specifically at all levels of the internet so
> that individuals, corporate and social responsibilities become the
> Standard Code of Practice on the net categorized as domestic /
> international individual and corporate social responsibilities.
>
>
>
> If you wonder why read on.
>
>
>
> The internet today is predominantly self regulated with minimal
> regulation and oversight it lacks any enforceability especially on
> international scale. But when we also look at the global financial and
> banking collapse particularly attributed to too much self regulation
> not enough oversight, checks and balances based on a laissez Faire
> supply side economic philosophy that called for minimal government
> intervention (preferred if none) and a lot of self regulation. this is
> how and where greed flourished to epic proportions.
>
>
>
> Just imagine the internet only 5 or ten years from now- a
> multilingual internet with IDNs in full swing and more than 3, 4 or
> perhaps 5 billion people actively using it across the globe.
>
>
>
> Now imagine the Internet's self regulation ethos generally
> remaining unchanged with little change on _international _management,
> oversight especially international cooperation between national law
> enforcement agencies and little progress to streamline
> legal enforceability of internet crimes committed in one country but
> targeted at another, such as cyber crimes, cyber terrorism, child
> pornography, to name a few, ( these already happen and they will
> grow exponentially as the internet users grows and becomes Multilingual) .
>
>
>
> I hope you are the picture so far.
>
>
>
> If you are just add to it that if we do not not create new and
> serious mechanisms of oversight, management and enforcement soon (I am
> not talking about "talk-shops and event" that are non binding and non
> committing) I can safely predict with confidence that the
> global banking and financial collapse will pale in comparison in how
> it will adversely impact us individually, nationally and internationally.
>
>
>
> my 2 cents
>
>
>
> Khaled Fattal
>
> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:22 AM
>
> *To:* Max Senges <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* irp <mailto:Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>
> *Subject:* [IRP] An article by Jonathan Zittrain relevant to our work
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Wolfgang Kleinw?chter has pointed the governance list to a recent
> article by Jonathan Zittrain regarding the initiative by Facebook to
> have a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and a process to
> involve registered users in the evolution of its terms of reference.
> The article is there : http://www.opendemocracy.net/node/47778/pdf
>
> Please find below the comments I sent in response on the governance
> list, as it pertains to the workshop proposal that I have submitted on
> "Governance of Social Media" at the request of Max. I hope it will go
> through and am looking forward to exchanging further on that topic.
>
> Quote :
>
> Thanks Wolfgang for pointing us to this article.
>
> As a matter of fact, the US representative in the recent ITU World
> Telecom Policy Forum in Lisbon has used himself the analogy that
> Jonathan raises by saying explicitly : "if Facebook were a country, it
> would be the fifth largest". If Facebook is really 200 million
> registered users, it has indeed passed Brazil in the list of countries
> ranked by population. (see : http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl)
>
> Jonathan's points make sense and I have raised them in the IGF, in
> particular in Hyderabad, to highlight the fact that such companies
> "terms of service" are not traditional terms of service but become the
> law of the space for most users.
>
> The two questions that this brings are :
> - *What is the governance of such social networks* : the processes by
> which such terms of service are "elaborated and applied" (cf. the
> definition of Internet Governance), as they represent "principles,
> norms, decision-making procedures and programs" - and in this respect,
> Facebook is clearly taking unprecedented initiatives
> - *What relation with the web of national laws* : the articulation
> between those "company governance regimes" and the various national
> laws and legal jurisdictions that should apply.
>
> The Internet has evolved form the physical IP-based network used
> mostly for email and file transfer into the http/html-based World Wide
> Web used to access information. It is clearly reaching a third stage
> with social networking applications, creating a sort of SocioNet, that
> is looking for its appropriate governance protocols.
>
> This is the reason why, on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet
> Rights and Principles, I have suggested a workshop theme for the next
> IGF, under the title : "The Governance of Social Media", precisely to
> address this type of issues. I hope it will be retained.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> D?l?gu? Sp?cial pour la Soci?t? de l'Information / Special Envoy for
> the Information Society
> Minist?re des Affaires Etrang?res et Europ?ennes/ French Ministry of
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau m?tier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
> Saint Exup?ry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20090502/0dbd16b3/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20090502/0dbd16b3/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the IRP
mailing list