[FSFLA] [alai-amlat-en] The Politics of Internet Governance: Imperialism by Other Means

Lun Dic 4 20:40:49 UTC 2017

(english behind)

QueridAs amigAs,

este texto de Richard Hill de Suiza lo recibí de Alai-AmLatina desde 
Quito en Ecuador. Es parte de "Internet ciudadana o monopolis", una 
colección de textos en español.

Internet ciudadana o monopolios
Revista No. 528-529 --- Oct-Nov 2017
https://www.alainet.org/es/revistas/528-529
https://www.alainet.org/sites/default/files/alem528-9_digital.pdf

Pero, ¿cuáles son los problemas reales? Si quieres ser un esclavo, 
tienes la posibilidad de serlo. Richard Hill y Parminder Jeet Singh de 
India actúan de esta manera. Lo leí en las listas de correo electrónico 
de IGF (Internet Governance Forum, Foro de Gobernanza de Internet) e 
ISOC (Internet Society, Sociedad de Internet).

Y sé lo mismo de las instituciones estatales en Bolivia, Ecuador, 
Venezuela y Nicaragua. Y todo, lo que leí a Cuba es lo mismo.

Richard y Parminder actúan con firmeza para las construcciones estatales 
y nunca para las comunidades. Y en América Latina podemos ver lo mismo. 
Y siempre encontramos detrás de las construcciones estatales a los 
grupos privados con sus intereses.

Que la "gobernanza de Internet" en todas sus formas es una construcción 
para controlar y capitalizar las telecomunicaciones es fácil de ver y 
entender. Tal vez, más difícil es entender, cómo podemos irnos de esta 
tontería, lo que le damos el nombre de "Internet".

InterNet,  the Inter-connection of local Net-works, la interconexión de 
redes locales, solo puede crear desde redes locales. Y esta es la base 
para crear una estructura de red en la telecomunicación. Y como a los 
grupos privados y estatales no les gusta la estructura de red y 
prefieren la estructura en estrella, la estructura piramidal, no se 
encuentra la estructura de red en las telecomunicaciones. Y, por lo 
tanto, no tenemos Internet.

con muchos saludos, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay

Dear friends,

this text from Richard Hill from Switzerland i got from Alai-AmLatina 
from Quito in Ecuador. It is part of "Internet ciudadana o monopolis", a 
collection of texts in spanish.

Internet ciudadana o monopolios
Revista No. 528-529 --- Oct-Nov 2017
https://www.alainet.org/es/revistas/528-529
https://www.alainet.org/sites/default/files/alem528-9_digital.pdf

But what are the real problems? If you want to be a slave, you have the 
possibility to be. Richard Hill and Parminder Jeet Singh from India act 
on this way. I read it in the email lists from IGF (Internet Governance 
Forum) and ISOC (Internet Society).

And i know the same from the state institutions in Bolivia, Ecuador, 
Venezuela and Nicaragua. And all, what i read to Cuba it is the same.

Richard and Parminder act strong for state constructions and never for 
communities. And in Latin America we can see the same. And always we 
find behind the state constructions the private groups with her interests.

That the "Internet Governance" in all forms is a construction to control 
and to capitalise the telecommunication it is easy to see and 
understand. Maybe, more difficult is to understand, how we can go away 
from this nonsense, what we give the name "Internet".

The InterNet, the Inter-connection of local Net-works, can only create 
from the local networks. And this is the base to create a net-structure 
in the telecommuniacation. And because the private and state groups 
don't like the net-structure and prefer the star-structure, the 
pyramidal structure, you don't find the net-structure in the 
telecommunication. And therefore, we don't have a Internet.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [alai-amlat-en] The Politics of Internet Governance: 
Imperialism by Other Means
Datum: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:06:51 -0500
Von: Alai-AmLatina <alai-amlatina at alai.info>
Antwort an: info at alainet.org

*The Politics of Internet Governance: Imperialism by Other Means*
*Richard Hill*

/ALAI AMLAT-en, 29/11/2017.-///The USA is deliberately structuring
<http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/>Internet
governance to ensure unrestricted corporate freedom and to favour its
own surveillance apparatus to support its foreign policy[1] <#_ftn1>,
under the guise of “combating terrorism”. By the same token, it largely
denies that certain services should be public services (or public
goods); and rejects any government role in supervising, much less
regulating, the Internet.

Our increasing reliance on Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs), which include the use of transnational networks to interconnect
personal computers and business computer systems, has important
consequences for governments[2] <#_ftn2> and all lines of commerce, in
particular finance. The current information revolution is far more
significant than the previous changes induced by telegraphy or
telephony.[3] <#_ftn3> While policy makers worldwide grasp this, most do
not fully see the power implications. In contrast, US policy makers
understand the importance of networks such as the Internet
<http://www.newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depression-information-technology-and-economic-crisis>in
promoting their country’s geo-economic and geo-political goals.[4] <#_ftn4>

Many aspects of the Internet continue to be governed by ad hoc entities
dominated by US economic interests
<http://www.apig.ch/CWG-Development%20Aspects.doc>(or at least those of
developed countries), in ways that are almost entirely beyond the
control of existing institutions such as the UN’s specialized ICT
agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and beyond the
control of any national government except the USA.[5] <#_ftn5>

The power implications of this situation are evident: the US and the
private companies it backs have far more say regarding the global
Internet than anybody else. And they use this power for political ends
(e.g. mass surveillance) and for economic ends (e.g. the very high
profits reaped by companies such as Google).[6] <#_ftn6> For sure the US
accepts some international discussions, but only in forums which it
expects to dominate, and only to the extent that the discussions conform
to its expectations. Indeed the US openly uses its political power in
the forums where these matters are discussed, attempting to impose trade
and investment policies that will favour its private companies, blatant
examples being discussions
<https://www.newsclick.in/e-commerce-discussions-wto-more-neo-liberal-policies-negotiated-secret>within
the World Trade Organization
<ttp://notforsale.mayfirst.org/en/signon/11th-wto-ministerial-letter-global-civil-society-about-agenda-wto>(WTO),
the Trans-Pacific Partnership
<https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/tpp-ecommerce-chapter-analysis.pdf>(TPP),
the Transatlantic Investment and Trade Partnership (TIPP), and the Trade
in Services Agreement
<http://www.uniglobalunion.org/news/tisa-foul-play>(TiSA).

And it uses a human rights discourse, in particular freedom of speech
and the spectre of other governments attempting to control the Internet
for censorship reasons or to stifle innovation, to mask its own human
rights violations, in particular the denial of democratic governance,
the imposition of US laws on the citizens of foreign countries and mass
surveillance. Moreover the trade deals that the US is using to further
corporate interests stymie
<http://www.apig.ch/CWG-Internet%202017-2bis.pdf>aspirations for
transnational economic equity.

Despite much rhetoric about openness, participation, accountability, and
democracy, the current governance model (called “the multi-stakeholder
model”) is largely undemocratic, because it is dominated by a
professional coterie of representatives of commercial and political
interests.[7] <#_ftn7> And it has been unable to address key Internet
issues such as security and affordability of access in developing
countries.

The USA’s relinquishing of its last vestiges of control over the
management and administration of Internet names and addresses (the IANA
transition) is being touted as a successful paradigm to apply to other
walks of life, but in reality it is just another privatization
<http://www.apig.ch/Chatam%20IG%20formatted%20final.pdf>that allows
private companies to control and exploit what should be public
resources.[8] <#_ftn8>

Meanwhile the rest of the world sits on the sidelines, unaware of the
stakes <http://www.apig.ch/Gaps%20r8%20clean.pdf>or unable to weigh into
the debate. After all, why would anybody be concerned about this power
imbalance as long as access to the Internet continues to expand; email
and the Web remain apparently open; social media is deployed in ever
more creative ways; and innovative “free” services
<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/>become
increasingly available?

We should be worried because there are no free services: users pay for
the services they receive by providing data, which is monetized and used
to generate revenues that are far in excess of the value of the services
provided.

As my colleague Parminder Jeet Singh and I have put the matter
<http://twn.my/title2/resurgence/2017/319-320/cover03.htm>[9] <#_ftn9>:
“A global digital order is slowly taking shape but while the North is
developing the norms and policy principles for this order on the basis
of its own interests, the developing world remains at the margins of
this process.  Unless they get their act together, the developing
countries risk being locked into a digital dependency which will
ultimately impact on their national sovereignty.”

And thus, not surprisingly, the Internet is being used as a tool for
economic and political dominance, that is, imperialism -just as, in the
past, other means of communication such as roads and telegraphy were
used by empires in their own interest[10] <#_ftn10>.

In this light, we call on all to jointhe Internet Social Forum
<http://www.internetsocialforum.net/>, as described in the the concept
paper: Why the Internet's future needs social justice movements
<http://www.thepanamanews.com/2016/11/internet-social-forum-the-internet-needs-social-justice-movements/>;
and to endorse the Delhi Declaration
<https://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration>of the JustNet Coalition.

*- Richard Hill*is president of the Association for Proper Internet
Governance.

rhill at alum.mit.edu <mailto:rhill at alum.mit.edu>

This paper is largely taken from previous paper "The True Stakes of
Internet Governance"
<http://www.tni.org/briefing/true-stakes-internet-governance>, /State of
Power 2015/ <http://www.tni.org/category/series/state-power-2015>,
Transnational Institute, January 2015.  A Spanish version was published
in ALAI's magazine /América Latina en Movimiento/, No. 528-529, Oct-Nov
2017 https://www.alainet.org/es/revistas/528-529

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

[1] <#_ftnref1>Powers, Shawn and Jablonski, Michael (2015), /The Real
Cyber War: The Political Economy of Internet Freedom,/University of
Illinois Press

[2] <#_ftnref2>An excellent analysis of the issues arising from this
situation is given in Hathaway, Melissa, 2014. “Connected Choices: How
the Internet is Challenging Sovereign Decisions”, /American Foreign
Policy Interests/, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 300
<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/24689/connected_choices.html>

[3] <#_ftnref3>Powers and Jablonski (2015)

[4] <#_ftnref4>Schiller, Dan (2014), /Digital Depression: Information
Technology and Economic Crisis/, Urbana: University of Illinois Press

[5] <#_ftnref5>Hill, Richard (2013), "Internet governance: the last gasp
of colonialism, or imperialism by other means", in Rolf H. Weber, Roxana
Radu, and Jean-Marie Chenou (eds), /The evolution of global Internet
policy: new principles and forms of governance in the making?/,
Schulthess/Springer

[6] <#_ftnref6>See for example the 2013-2014 annual report of IT For
Change
<http://www.itforchange.net/ITfC_Annual_Report_2013-14/index.php/Main_Page>

[7] <#_ftnref7>Powers and Jablonski (2015)

[8] <#_ftnref8>Hill, R. (2017) "Internet governance, multi-stakeholder
models, and the IANA transition: shining example or dark side?",
/Journal of Cyber Policy/, Vol. 1, No. 2

[9] <#_ftnref9>Hill, R. and Singh, P.J. (2017)“Digitalisation and the
gig economy: Implications for the developing world"
<http://twn.my/title2/resurgence/2017/319-320/cover03.htm> (with
Parminder Jeet Singh), Third World Resurgence
<http://twn.my/title2/resurgence/twr.htm>, no. 319/320 (Mar/Apr 2017)

[10] <#_ftnref10>See for example Hills,J. (2007)/Telecommunications and
Empire/, University of Illinois Press

URL of this article:  https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/189527

More information: http://alainet.org/index.phtml.en
RSS:  http://alainet.org/rss.phtml Twitter: http://twitter.com/ALAIinfo

We invite you to sustain ALAI's work.
Contributions: http://alainet.org/donaciones.php
______________________________________
Agencia Latinoamericana de Informacion
email: info at alainet.org

Subscriptions: http://listas.alainet.org/listas/subscribe/alai-amlat-en
Unsubscribe: http://listas.alainet.org/listas/signoff/alai-amlatina-en