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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

No. My point is that multilateral treatymaking is not done in advance of, but rather after, social and political change and as a means of recognising those changes and that the largest changes are made in cases where general warfare or other serious economic or socially-disruptive events have taken place.

On 13 Mar 2013, at 08:35, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick,
>  
> Do I understand you to be saying that it is your preference that the rules/law governing the Internet be made bi-laterally between China and the US?
>  
> M
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:21 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist
>  
> Dear Parminder, see below
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
>  
> Nick 
>  
> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse typos. If you want to schedule some time to talk, try this: http://meetme.so/nashton
> 
> On 13 Mar 2013, at 06:19, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> I've snipped the rest to focus on this point, which seems (to me, clearly others may see things differently) the most significant of your post.
>  
> 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.
>  
> Treaty-making, in my 20+ years of experience, is largely a codification of existing practice, not an evolution to create a new global situation: 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. 
>  
> 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.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/989fcc23/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