I want surprises. I want innovation. I want change. I voted for change. Many American voted for change, but it seems so far that we’re going to get a cabinet of the usual players. Now, Gary has pointed out to me that if you look at FDR’s cabinet you had a lot of insiders, but obviously that cabinet brought about a lot of change.

But Roosevelt had the brain trust–an unlikely cadre of advisers who thought of some of the most innovative solutions to the nation’s problems that we have ever seen. They turned upside down the expectations for government. Who is the Loius Howe? The F. Palmer Weber? Maybe these figures, a modern day brain trust will appear, but so far what I’m seeing is exactly what we’d expect: old names, old faces, old ideas. Tom Daschle? Hillary Clinton? Rahm Emmanuel? Eric Holder? All fine choices, and I will likely in the coming days, weeks, and months will accept, indeed praise, their appointments, but today, this hour I just want to know when we’re going to see some change.

Marty Lederman’s answer: Almost assuredly not. You likely know that already. But let me quote the level of detail the campaigns are now getting into:

As of right now, Obama has 63 “pledged” delegates, to 48 for Clinton and 26 for John Edwards. On February 5th, 1688 further pledged delegates will be chosen, from 22 states, American Samoa, and Democrats abroad. Of those 1688 delegates, 1096 will be allocated on a congressional-district-level basis. And, as the New York Times reports today, the allocation rules are such that, where a particular district has an even number of delegates, they are likely to be split evenly between Clinton and Obama, except in those rare districts where one of those candidates fails to secure 30 percent of the vote. Therefore, the candidates are aiming their focus on those districts that have an odd number of delegates (e.g., one or three), in hopes that in those particular districts they will gain a one-delegate advantage over the other candidate!

I highly recommend that you read the whole article on Balikination here.

Caroline Kennedy was big, but I think the fact that Ted Kennedy endorsed him also is huge. Ted almost never endorses someone in the primary. The theme of Ted Kennedy’s speech at American University, and of Caroline Kennedy’s Times op-ed, is that Obama is John F. Kennedy’s political heir. It is pretty easy to see Ted’s attacks on 42 with lines like: we have to “to turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.” I was personally more moved by Caroline:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Toni Morrison has added her endorsement to Obama’s collection as well. The Nobel Prize-winning author and Princeton professor wrote a letter to Obama explaining her decision, saying that “in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.”

And, since it matters to me, “Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday. And then Tuesday or Wednesday, she plans to endorse Barack Obama, numerous Democratic sources said.”

But as I will be the first to admit, the big question is whether Obama can have a large enough showing in NY, NJ and CA. If not none of this will matter.

I have decided to blog a little bit in the run up to Feb 5th and then see where we are. Gary is a pretty ardent Hillary Supporter, I am a pretty ardent Obama supporter. So, things might be interested.

I would like to start with a quotation from The Super Tuesday Strategy Guide by Christopher Beam and Chadwick Matlin:

Hillary Clinton: The proportional-delegate system doesn’t help the national front-runner because she can’t rack up a commanding delegate lead. So, for Clinton, Feb. 5 is about maximizing her advantage in states that already favor her. She owns the tristate delegate behemoth of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (468 delegates total). Plus, Arkansas (47) still remembers her as their First Lady before she became the country’s. She polls favorably ”and Obama polls poorly ”among Latinos, which means that Arizona and New Mexico (105 delegates total) are friendly states thanks to their 25 percent-plus Hispanic population, but Obama won’t cede those votes. The Latino-factor also helps her in California (441) where she already polls well, but she’ll need to spend considerable time there to fight back against Obama’s made-for-Hollywood life story.

States to tackle: Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Massachusetts
States to ignore: Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York

Barack Obama: Nationwide, Obama hopes to combat Hillary’s name-recognition with his own star power. Besides blitzing the national media, he’ll probably start with his home base, Illinois (185 delegates), and focus on states with caucuses like Kansas (41) and Minnesota (88), where he might repeat his Iowa victory, and open primaries in which Independents and Republicans can vote as well. Obama should also tackle purple states in which Democrats normally fare poorly, such as Colorado (71) and Missouri (88), to draw out Hillary-hating indies. Independents can also vote in the day’s biggest prize, California (441), although Hillary has an edge in Golden State polls. The other grand prize, New York (281), is also Clinton country, but Obama will likely try to foment an uprising in the Big Apple ”a victory there would make for giddy headlines ”and leave the boonies to Hillary.  

States to tackle: Illinois, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, California, New York
States to ignore: Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Delaware  

John Edwards: Assuming John Edwards stays in the race through Feb. 5, he’ll have to find a way to play kingmaker with his delegates. That means concentrating on states where he can pull in at least 15 percent of the vote, which is the Democrats’ threshold to receive delegates. He should concentrate on the South to capture the white vote that Obama doesn’t grab and Clinton doesn’t compete for. He already has roots in Georgia and could do well in Alabama and Tennessee (248 delegates total). From there, he can look to his strong second-place finishes in 2004 for inspiration. Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah (164 delegates total) all leaned toward Edwards in 2004, and could do so again. There probably won’t be room for him in California or New York (722 delegates total), but squeezing any delegates out of those two would add a few jewels to the crown.

States to tackle: Alabama, California, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
States to ignore: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, New York, New Jersey

The smaller paper format of the New York Times is an affront to every long time reader of the print edition. As though less space for the news was bad enough, fewer letters and less Op-ED space lowers the discourse in the newspaper. Many read the Times because of their dedication to principles beyond petty economics. Not the men who add to the quality of their own living or that of their shareholders, but the men who deepen the quality of our living, are the real benefactors of the news. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. was no friend of the news today.

Just how much has economic liberalization moved China toward democracy?

Seymour Martin Lipset famously wrote:

[T]he more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy. From Aristotle down to the present, men have argued that only in a wealthy society in which relatively few citizens lived in real poverty could a situation exist in which the mass of the population could intelligently participate in politics and could develop the self-restraint necessary to avoid succumbing to the appeals of irresponsible demagogues.

Much of the democratic world’s relations with China is driven by Lipset’s notion that economic growth will provide the conditions under which democracy is most likely to occur. I’d like to briefly examine two cases of recent noteworthiness that point out the weaknesses in Lipset’s theory.

The first ”the Chinese government’s reaction to the scandal involving the exportation of pet food, medicine, and toothpaste tainted by counterfeited chemicals reveals a great deal. China’s decision to make global its rampant food and drug tainting problems after it was discovered to be the source of the tainted products reveals that unlike its handling of the SARS incident a couple years ago, the Chinese government, finally realizes that a measure of transparency is required in dealing with its trading partners (many of which are democratic and expect transparency). In a way, then, though the ordered executions of several of its top food and drug safety officials does not seem very democratic, the Chinese government has been compelled, through outside economic incentives provided by global trading, to be a little more transparent, and people within China’s borders more or less benefit from that increased transparency and information.

But lest optimists carry on with glowing predictions of a democratic China, a recent incident ”one in which economic stakes were present ”indicates that China, bound by capitalist motives, still tightly controls the levels of political dissidence it will allow. The Financial Times reports that China’s push to strip away online anonymity and require the authors of web posts to be identified by their real names is an effort to quell the political protests that have been organized through online activism. The article suggests that the Chinese government is putting a lid on political expression because it feels that economic growth is being undermined by political dissidence.

China’s normalization toward international democratic standards of disseminating information to the outside world or creating safe and marketable products to the outside world certainly benefit the people that are not living in China but may benefit the Chinese people very little. If China steps up food and drug regulations to make sure its products are safe, most likely, in an effort to maximize economic growth with the least effort and resources diverted to the task of revamping food and drug safety protocols, China will only make sure that products marketed to the outside world are safe. Products made by Chinese factories for Chinese-only consumption will slip through the cracks of inadequate safety regulations and ineffective enforcement mechanisms.

And the goal of economic dominance, itself, is beginning to be used with more and more frequency to justify the government’s attempts to curb free speech and peaceful protests. Capitalism and economic growth may indeed, as Lipset theorized, bring about the wealth a country needs in order for its citizens to be educated and informed, but in China, the fact remains that informed and active citizens still will not get anywhere so long as certain measures are taken to prevent citizens from affecting political outcomes.

Two things about the attempted car bombings and the airport attack in Great Britain.

First, a lot of attention is being paid to the fact that “All eight people arrested in the aftermath of two bungled car bombings here last week are from the medical profession.” The tendency for the past few years (both in the media and within academia) has been to assume that religious violence is an outgrowth of other social factors. The assumption is that it’s a function of feeling oppressed, or of having limited opportunities, or of being in a low socio-economic bracket. While these no doubt contribute to the motivation to perpetrate violence, they do not trump what I think is the fundamental aspect of the violence: its grounding in religious belief.

There is something particular about the terrorist acts committed by Islamic extremists and this particularity is the religious dimension of the violence. I tend to agree with scholars like Mark Juergensmeyer that view religious terrorism as a symbolic and performative act. It is not meant to accomplish a strategic goal but rather meant to announce that those committing the violent act will not tolerate the way things are in a particular country, or in the world.

Of course, despite the discussion of how surprising it is that the suspects are all in the medical profession, there is no speculation on religious motivation, only bewilderment. “Even if I were to come across my enemy, my duty is to heal the sick…How could I remotely plan to kill and maim innocent people? I have no words to describe this,” said the chairman of the British International Doctors Association in the Times article cited above. The Washington Post takes a similar angle:

Mohammed Shafiq, 28, spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation, a leading Muslim youth organization, said it was “absolutely baffling” that doctors — professionals with good jobs and income — would be involved in violent extremism. He said Muslim leaders have been most concerned about the radicalization of disaffected and unemployed youth, and they have been urging the government to help them find jobs.

Religious belief runs deeper than socio-economic factors, and while being poor may drive someone to religion, so might a whole host of other factors. Now the second point: what does this mean for terrorism in the United States?

Op-Ed columnist for the Washington Post Eugene Robinson, posits two possible reasons why we haven’t seen a U.S. attack in almost six years. First, al-Qaeda is planning something bigger, and not wasting its time with smaller operations. Second, the U.S. does a better job of integrating its Muslim citizens than Europe.

While the second point may be true, the suspects in the Great Britain plot/attack were foreign born. Furthermore, what does “well integrated” in the U.S. mean? Granted, the Pew Forum report specifically addresses American Muslims’ feelings about extremism, but still when we think of the difference between U.S. and European Muslim populations it comes down to socio-economic status. U.S. Muslims are middle class families. European Muslims are “disaffected and unemployed” young adults. But when we see doctors perpetrating the terrorism, where does this leave our analysis? We can’t pigeonhole suspects into a particular social class or as coming from a particular educational background. This seems to be a lesson we are having a difficult time learning.

Regarding the first point, that perhaps al-Qaeda is plotting something larger, I doubt that is the case. The Post also reports that:

The next terrorist assault on the United States is likely to come through relatively unsophisticated, near-simultaneous attacks — similar to those attempted in Britain over the weekend — designed more to provoke widespread fear and panic than to cause major losses of life, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials believe.

This would be the type of symbolic violence that Juergensmeyer talks about. From the same article:

Although British investigators have not claimed al-Qaeda involvement in the latest incidents, officials here said they may constitute a “hybrid” phenomenon, in which al-Qaeda inspires and guides local groups from afar but establishes no visible operational or logistical links.

My feeling is that this accurately characterizes what happened in Great Britain and, moreover, the future of Islamic terrorism. The 9/11/06 issue of The New Yorker ran a story by Lawrence Wright titled “The Master Plan: What will the next stage of jihad be?” The article described Abu Musab al-Suri, a Syrian theorist of jihad whose goal was to “codify the doctrines that animated Islamist jihad, so that Muslim youths of the future could discover the cause and begin their own, spontaneous religious war.” In other words, the more organized breed of terrorist organization is now defunct, and the future is terrorist attacks initiated by individuals or autonomous groups. Suri’s teachings were published on the internet in December of 2004, perhaps the theory is finally becoming practice.

So far this page has given no treatment to the news yesterday that President Bush has commuted the jail sentence of Scooter. The obvious points are there for the taking. The administration has been laying the seed for this for months in saying that no underlying crime was committed.

I agree with most that has been said by editorial pages and bloggers across the board. However, I want to give special treatment to the article Slate is running. I like Slate, but sometimes they’re being contrarian only for the sake of being contrarian. Timothy Noah argues that Bush was right in sparing Libby.

Before we touch that, I think it’s worth pointing out that this President, who in his remarks said he was doing this out of compassion and a sense of justice, has issued fewer pardons than most presidents in the 20th century. We are all aware of his record granting clemency while Governor of Texas. I look forward to the White House pointing to other cases where Bush has used compassion in measuring fairness in sentencing; there are surely many applications he has received where just that would be warranted.

Onto Noah. Let’s examine his arguments.

But Judge Reggie Walton went overboard in sentencing Libby to 30 months. This was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court’s probation office, and if Libby hadn’t been a high-ranking government official, there’s a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment. Walton gave Libby 30 months and a $250,000 fine, then further twisted the knife by denying Libby’s routine request to delay the sentence while his lawyers appealed it. (Libby was duly assigned the federal prison register number 28301-016, but Libby’s lawyers managed to move quickly enough to keep Libby out of the slammer until his appeal was denied on July 2, the same day Bush commuted his sentence.) The voluminous pleas for leniency from Libby’s A-list friends seem to have annoyed Walton, who erred on the side of severity not in spite of Libby’s high position in government but because of it. Walton wanted to make an example of him. [links original]

The media needs to have this settled, and I’ve heard it from other friends and tacit supporters of the administration as well: HIS APPEAL WAS NOT DENIED. Neither the appeal as to whether or not Libby’s conviction or the punishment was inappropriate, nor the appeal as to constitutionality of the special prosecutor has been settled. Instead, the appeal that was denied yesterday was an appeal to be granted bail. His other appeal will presumably continue, still allowing conservatives to challenge the conviction and the prosecutor, and leaving room for a Bush pardon if that fails.

Then Noah invokes the holy spirit of any argument, CLINTON DID IT. Though we see a slight shift in tactic — instead of saying that Clinton has a glib and highly suspect list of 11th hour pardons, Noah says that Clinton committed perjury — Clinton was acquitted of that charge as well as obstruction of justice. As well, let’s not forget the severity of the two offenses: a lie about a relationship, and a lie about unmasking an undercover agent, at the behest of the Vice President, to undermine a dissenter.

I could write more but have work to finish. Keep this in mind: this isn’t over yet, and there could still be a pardon on January 20, 2009.

I understand that many politicians are themselves religious, and that, moreover, it is politically prudent to invoke religious belief and speak in religious terms when 80% of the population identifies as Christian. Nevertheless, as a nonreligious individual, it is sometimes hard for me to stomach the religious rhetoric of politicians. The feeling arises due to a variety of factors, but perhaps the weightiest is the way that religion has been co-opted by social conservatives to justify the perpetuation of cruelty and suffering through, for example, denying gay men and women marriage rights, restricting a woman’s reproductive rights, etc.

When I first heard Barack Obama speak on politics and religion in June of 2006, I had a mixed feelings. However, with the perspective of another year, and another speech by Obama on religion and politics just passed, I’ve come to a different conclusion. Practically speaking, I think a frank discussion of religion and religious beliefs that accord with liberal policies is the only way for democrats to go. What puts me at ease is Obama’s particular approach to religion and politics. He wants to navigate the relation between the two in a way that does service to both religious and secular citizens.

In a Chicago Tribune article from three days ago, Obama is quoted as saying:

“One of the things that I’m always interested in when it comes to politics is making sure I can continually translate values that are grounded in my religious faith into universal values that appeal to all people. If I’m in church I might quote some Scripture. If I’m outside a church I might quote FDR. Hopefully, they both lead to the same place.”

While that makes a lot of sense to me, I’m curious to see how it plays with a more devout audience. Obama apparently anticipates the difficulty, saying in the June ‘06 speech “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the bible, as many Evangelicals do, but in a pluralistic society we have no choice.” It is encouraging, therefore, to see religious leaders reaching out to Obama, as Pastor Rick Warren did by inviting Obama to speak at Saddleback Church for the Global Summit on AIDS and the Church in December of ‘06 (a contentious invitation within the congregation, to be sure).

Some are skeptical that the democrats opening up on religious life will have much of an effect. Michael Gerson writes that Obama’s openness about his religion will not be sufficient to win over Christian voters. His suggestion, for all democrats, is to soften their stances on the typically foundational issues for Christians: abortion and gay rights. However, it seems to me that this would be going to far. What excites me the most about Obama’s willingness to talk religion is that it puts him in a position of credibility, from which he can immanently criticize religious conservatives. For example, ‘You think gay men and women shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Well what about the injunction to love in 1 Corinthians 13? Or the injunction to not judge in John 8:7?’ Furthermore, for democrats to change their position on social issues would be to abandon their traditional base and lose their identity.

Obama, and hopefully a younger generation of Evangelicals, wants to move away from the polemics of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the like. Reverend Joel Hunter, for example, realizes that “our focus on arguments and opponents is not working.” What is encouraging about Obama is that while he may speak in religious terms, he does so while calling for fair mindedness. His goal is to foster discussion between individuals of differing religiosity. His candor is refreshing.

The London terror plot and the Scotland car bomb attack of the past few days are clearly the top stories for the weekend, as the media plays on the fear of Americans and reminds us that terrorism is still a threat in the US. But that’s not all. Fox News and top Republican presidential candidates have reminded us what UK terror is really about: immigration.

The self-proclaimed terrorism expert Rudy Giuliani has already jumped on the UK incidents as an indication of the need for tighter national security in the US, including the obligatory pouring of even more resources into the patrol efforts on the US-Mexico border. One might recall the days when Giuliani enjoyed the contributions of undocumented immigrants in NYC, and prohibited police officers from questioning about immigration status.

This morning on Fox & Friends, a fair and balanced debate was held about the UK terror plot/attack. When a political analyst suggested that both Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could use these incidents to their political advantage, the other guest, a Newsday columnist, quickly responded that Hillary and her fellow proponents of amnesty, multilingualism, and multiculturalism, are essentially the reason why terror happens, a very misguided argument in my view.

At this point, the Republicans will do just about anything to conflate immigration with terrorism. Perhaps the most irrational of these arguments thus far has come from likely Republican candidate Fred Thompson, who has even found a way to bring a Latino group under the banner of potential terrorists.

Thompson spoke about undocumented immigration through the Mexican border at a campaign stop last week, strangely focusing on Cuban exiles as cause for alarm, despite the fact that Cubans who arrive in the United States, under the law, are not undocumented. He said,

If they’re coming from Cuba, where else are they coming from? And I don’t imagine they’re coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We’re living in the era of the suitcase bomb. We can’t be talking seriously about national security while that’s going on. (Watch here.)

Who is next? Under this view, Venezuelan immigrants would surely be viewed in the same way. What about Chinese immigrants? Or will migrants from any left-learning, Islamic or otherwise enemy nation be viewed as spies and terrorists before they are treated as refugees?

The assumption that Cuban exiles are coming to attack the United States, rather than to flee Castro’s rule is actually counterproductive to the Republican ideology regarding Cuba, which first generation Cuban Americans overwhelmingly support.

Hillary smartly condemned his comments. Let’s hope Miami does as well. Although Cuban Americans have a history of rejecting new arrivals from the island, let alone from elsewhere in Latin America, hopefully they will recognize the systematic efforts by Republicans to bring a criminal and now even terrorist association with being a Latino immigrant in the United States.

So, based on the opinion in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case I have a simple question, which I’ll only use a short amount of space for.

If the decision says that speech of a political nature is allowed, then technically wouldn’t a banner or t-shirt proclaiming Bong Hits 4 Jesus, not be a comment on the outcome of the case?

In 2006, Human Rights Watch named Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft as three of the worst offenders of freedom of speech for their role in helping to censor Chinese internet content. Google.cn (Google in China) censors the Tank Man image from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest from its search engine so that Chinese citizens searching for Tiananmen Square bring up fairly innocuous images and descriptions of Tiananmen Square and Microsoft has offered a blog tool that generates an error rejecting ˜profanity’ when a user includes the word ˜democracy’ in the title of a blog, according to Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Most deplorable has been Yahoo!’s compliance with the Chinese government in implicating several Chinese journalists for their participation in either voicing online dissent or using the internet as a means of communicating to people outside the country about the conditions they find wanting.

The study of international politics often leaves little reason to have faith in international norms and principles ”international norms and principles like the Declaration of Human Rights and the Kyoto Protocol which have a relatively weak ability to coerce signatory countries to uphold their agreements and to create real costs for nonsignatory countries to remain outside the bandwagon of signatory states. Privacy principles, established under the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) in 1980, fail to be upheld in the modern-day, by the governments of member countries because the OECD guidelines, while well-meaning, are constructed too broadly and vaguely for there to be a clear demarcation between violating those principles and carrying out those principles while bearing other national interests in mind. And even if someone, like Human Rights Watch, could decry that a country conducting internet surveillance on its citizens was violating the OECD Privacy Guidelines, what would come of it? There exists no organ to enforce compliance with international standards like the OECD Privacy Principles.

Added to the problem of enforcement is the amorphous and quickly changing scope of cyber law, where privacy acts and precedents in communications and electronics regulations can be either ignored, discarded, or blurred because the internet is the new frontier of communications and technology, where new challenges and opportunities to interpret ”or misinterpret ”the law and prior norms abounds.

In light of all of international governance’s prior failures, I do acknowledge that in the absence of real enforcement mechanisms, the simple act of signing onto an international agreement may create reputational costs in an iterated game theory scenario that would induce a country to comply with norms and standards:

For example, if Country A were to default from an international standard that a group of other countries adhered to, Country A could be blackballed out of important trading deals that are important to its economy. Thus, there would be a strong economic incentive to stick with the agreement. This is generally how the World Trade Organization (WTO) is supposed to work. And in general, this method of using economic incentives to induce good behavior ”or democratization ”has been painted in the West as a success of neoliberalism.

But despite the iota of faith in international law that I have, I think that the strength and potential in neoliberalism lies not within the construct of international laws developed by state governments banding together in economic arrangements like the OECD or the WTO. The new frontier for international governance and the creation of new norms for good behavior, in my opinion, lies within multinational corporations. Multinational corporations span more publics than can traditional state governments and can infiltrate many more close-off societies than well-meaning non-profit humanitarian agencies that are barred access by authoritarian governments fearful of the private agendas that humanitarian agencies bring with them through the pervasive arm of market forces.

One project that I think holds particular promise is the principles project being developed under the advice of the Berkman Center of Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. By the end of 2007, several large corporations with stakes in cyber law and internet governance, including Google, Microsoft, Vodafone, and Yahoo! met with groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights in China, and Reporters Without Borders to discuss how to draft a framework intended to adjudicate the two interests that have been traditionally opposed ”generating profit and adhering to human rights.

The project is intended to follow the footsteps of Leon Sullivan, one of the fathers of the concept of corporate social responsibility who published the Sullivan Principles in 1977 to ensure nondiscrimination and the protection of human rights by companies.

Following the publication of the Sullivan Principles, the world saw a rise of corporations rising to the challenge of adopting the Sullivan Principles in the attempt to more clearly define their responsibilities to their stakeholders and their workers, and as companies bandwagoned to adopt these principles, it became a reputational cost for those companies that did not adopt the principles to be seen as legitimate by their shareholders.

I think that developing web principles is a step in the right direction for the amorphous state of internet governance. If enough major internet corporations go on board to adhere to principles that prohibit corporate complicity with internet censorship, deciding not to do business with closed information societies in China and other countries, it becomes clear that in the end, state governments will be the ones to buckle. Governments will not be able to afford the economic costs of having inferior technology and communications networks, and they will have to make significant concessions to the corporate ideologies of the companies providing technology and communications services.

This is the new frontier of internet governance ”governance by major corporations. But this is not a hegemonic rule of the Googles and the Microsofts, but governance scheme largely tempered by the democratic-minded markets which they serve. Most of the impetus for creating a principles framework came from the public backlash from stakeholders to Yahoo!’s and Google’s efforts to censor the internet in China. As human rights remains a significant concern for many stakeholders, it is clear that the market forces of neoliberalism will continue to give economic incentives for companies to adopt more socially responsible means of conducting business.