[governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist

[parminder]

It is rather well known that multilateral agreements have a greater 
chance of being based on higher norms and principles than are bilateral 
and plurilateral ones, which are more oriented to narrower interests (pl 
refer to the literature on FTAs).  Also, almost always, bilateral and 
plurilateral agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater 
gains for those who are more powerful, something which follows from the 
preceding statement.

Accordingly, while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil 
society has to make its considered value based choice whether it prefers 
multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral ones when the issue 
is clearly of a global import, like Internet governance is, perhaps like 
no other issue. In all other areas of global governance, I see a 
distinct preference in civil society for global agreements in preference 
to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from trade and IP to climate.

While there certainly is this unique context of global IG about the 
power of states vis a vis the global communication realm, and the 
perverse political incentives than this issue brings in, civil society 
still must aim for higher norms and principle based universalistic 
agreements over narrow interests based opportunistic ones. Like Michael, 
I am surprised and disconcerted that there is open advocacy in a civil 
society group against such universalistic agreements in favour of narrow 
interests based bilateral ones. The latter never serve the more 
marginalised, whose interests progressive civil society should be 
representing.

Remember, human rights instruments are also multilaterally negotiated 
texts, something which was done at a time when a much smaller percentage 
of countries were democracies then are today! In fact, I am often deeply 
touched by the deep value based work that goes on in the multilateral 
systems, for instance what I saw recently at a ECOSOC committee working 
on access to scientific knowledge. Such kind of work stands out even 
more when seen against the open and blatant private interest based 
discussions and deal making that mark the so called loosely structured 
private governance systems that dominate Internet governance.

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.


parminder



On Wednesday 13 March 2013 06:12 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> Okay, let me make sure that I understand you folks…
>
> You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement 
> negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err… the 
> responsible senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats 
> in China determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the 
> Internet (perhaps you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to 
> separate out "bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the 
> interconnections of the "global" Internet) rather than a multilateral 
> agreement negotiated more or less in public among all countries where, 
> given the current move towards "multi-stakeholderism" civil society, 
> the technical community etc.etc. (amongst others) would have input…
>
> Strange world you guys live in…
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter H. 
> Hellmonds
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:22 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Nick Ashton-Hart'; 'michael 
> gurstein'
> *Subject:* AW: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a 
> world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist
>
> +1. Right, and sometimes bilateral agreements between two powers can 
> be much more effective in a realpolitik sense to achieve desired 
> objectives and are much easier to negotiate and implement than any 
> kind of global agreement, which usually would take a decade or two to 
> negotiate and would be watered down so much that the initiators would 
> see nothing left of their original intent.
>
> Peter
>
> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *Nick 
> Ashton-Hart
> *Gesendet:* 12 March 2013 22:17
> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Peter H. Hellmonds
> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a 
> world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist
>
> See below
>
> -- 
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick
>
> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic 
> mangling.
>
>
> On 12 Mar 2013, at 17:30, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     What does occur to me from both of these however, is that they
>     (together) clearly indicate the need for some sort of global
>     agreements concerning the overall governance
>     (development/deployment) of the Internet (including issues of
>     cybersecurity and content flow) if it is to continue to operate in
>     an effective and inclusive manner in the interests of us all…
>
> There are plenty of rules already with respect to the behaviour we are 
> seeing, and they are rules to which China is a party. For example, 
> China has obligations at the WTO not to interfere with advertising, 
> yet, they block ad-bearing services from outside in order to protect 
> equivalent services (including ad-bearing services mind you) that are 
> homegrown. There are also human rights agreements, again to which 
> China is a party I understand, which obligate it not to do many of the 
> things it is doing to its citizens.
>
> There are also talks going on now in trade that would protect the flow 
> of information, and quite likely the Internet as a platform, too.
>
> This idea that agreements need to be made in order to prevent certain 
> states from doing one thing or another is all very nice - but just 
> because a country signs an agreement doesn't mean it will implement 
> its provisions.
>
> !DSPAM:2676,513faa9b201487147020512!
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/02fd87ab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t