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

Wed Mar 13 03:40:40 EDT 2013

Comment below:

On 13/03/2013 09:25, parminder wrote:
>
> Dear Nick
>
> Some responses below
>
>
> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 11:51 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> 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.
>
> What do you think of various human rights instruments, that were 
> globally negotiated, in times much worse than today. How do you 
> explain them?
>>
>> Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a 
>> codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new 
>> global situation:
>
>
> 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.

Agree this is necessary.
>  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.

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?

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.

Anriette

>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/3ab785dd/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