<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font size="+1">C<font size="+1">omment below:<br>
<br>
</font></font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/03/2013 09:25, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
Dear Nick
<br>
<br>
Some responses below
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 13 March 2013 11:51 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><SNIP>
<br>
<br>
Let's accept for the moment that what you say is a true
statement. Why would you see treaty-making as likely to counter
these impacts, given the scenario you posit? In fact, a treaty,
in this case, would be likely to cast in stone the very
inequalities and dangers that you see.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What do you think of various human rights instruments, that were
globally negotiated, in times much worse than today. How do you
explain them?
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a
codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a
new global situation:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I dont think we can right now jump into an ominbus Internet
treaty, and I am not sure it will ever be required/ useful.
However, we can start will trying to put together some higher
level Internet principles. We can also begin to discuss and try
to seek solutions, and as possibly codify them, on emergent issues
like cross border data flows, net neutrality, basic content flow
and FoE guarantees, regulation of global Internet business, global
competition policy frameworks in the Internet space, and so on.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree this is necessary. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net" type="cite"> Before
that we can and should try to put together a formal place where
such things can actually be codified (other than, say OECD's
CCICP) in a democratic manner, if and when there is a political
will to do so. But right now the dominant powers, and there
numerous supporters, simply refuse to even allow a UN based space
to start considering these issues, with a /possibility/ of being
able to do something about them. That is the problem right now,
and it cant be pushed away by providing generally pessimistic
perspectives on the world's political capabilities.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Have we given up on the IGF being a space where serious discussion
of this nature can take place? Discussion that results in outcomes
of some kind? Has the cautious approach to the IGF adopted by some
of its greatest supporters made it irrelevant? <br>
<br>
I would like to see the IGF used more effectively - I am not
convinced that a new space will succeed in achieving what the space
that we already have is not achieving with regards to formulating
effective - public interest bound - responses to some of the issues
Parminder identifies.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51402A00.5040501@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">governments are simply unwilling to do
much that changes their existing legal system profoundly
excepting very rarely and then only because of a massive
external threat or stress - which the negotiation is designed to
deal with.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nick, you are referring to a classical political dilemma, and
human race has constantly surprised itself by rising above it and
acting collectively in larger public interest. As Hobbes described
the human life as solitary, poor, nasty, /brutish/, and /short
/and//yet (or because of that), they could enter into a social
contract and organise into political communities..... Everyone
around me sees enough problematic aspects of how the Internet is
evolving, and they are keen that if possible something should be
done about it. Is it not the view of the people you meet?
<br>
<br>
BTW, did you see the latest Hollywood movie on Lincoln, that great
leader of people. Does it not explain how people can actually act
what appears to be against their narrow self interest, for a
larger good. Why else would a bunch of white American together
decide to liberate slaves (the whole movie being about this great
phenomenon), and lose on cheap captive labour, and all great
enjoyments of life that come with it? Can you explain this
phenomenon, and I will explain to you why countries, if put
together, can, and will, indeed work out agreements in public
interest.
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">What is happening at the larger
social-structural level, and which I consider as the greatest
threat to democracy, is a clear move from public governance,
based on social contract, to private governance, based on
private, interest-based, contracts. And the shift is rather
systemic. It is obviously strongly supported, in fact
instigated, by global capital which finds the biggest
challenge to its domination of all aspects of our lives in the
universal values of equity, fraternity and solidarity, that
underlie public governance systems.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>