<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
This is a useful dialogue....<br>
<br>
responses below.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM,
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Parminder,
thanks for you reply and the reference to the COE background paper.
Indeed, there are numerous governments (also OECD and COE member states) which still believe that the "Status Quo Plus" proposal from the WGIG (that is an intergovernmental Internet council) on top of an hierarchy is the answer to all Internet problems. I disagree. This did not work in 2005. And it will not work in 2014.
As I explained in my final statement before the Council of Europe I argued that the adoption of the COE Internet principles declaration by governments can be only the first step. Such a set of principles has to be "globalized" and "multistakeholderized" to be effective. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Did you ask for CoE principles to be 'globalised'!? Please see
Carlos's intervention in this regard during the WGEC meeting.
Developing countries - civil society and governments - resent such a
procedure - of Europe making the principles, and then 'globalising'
them. Isnt this undemocratic and unfair. <br>
<br>
And at the same time, you do not agree to a 'similar' global
procedure of Internet principles and policies development with all
countries involved... On what basis. This is what we are talking
about here.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
My approach is that today´s intergovernmental treaty system (and relevant intergovernmental mechanisms) are meanwhile embedded into a multistakeholder environment. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree. Things take shape, and rise from this multistakeholder
environment and then, if and when, public policy decisions are
needed, governments take them. I understand that this is what you
are saying below. Am I right? <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This does NOT lead to the disapperance of the intergovenrmental treaty system. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
CoE and OECD have standing mechanisms to help develop
Internet-related policy related treaties when needed. UN does not
have such a mechanism. CIRP like proposals are calls to have such a
facilitating standing mechanism. Without such mechanism, it will
always be CoE and OECD that will make Internet policy related
treaties, or policy frameworks, and then other countries will be
kind of forced to join in.... Simply because developing countries
are left with no mechanism to even prepare for and initiate such a
process. This is deliberate ham-shackling of developing countries -
to put then in a position of permanent dependency. That is the main
point I am making.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Governments (and parliaments) will continue to be the first stakeholder in making decisions on public policy issues related to the Internet. And governments can enhance their mutual cooperation and agree on issues (if they are able to agree) whatever they want. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No they cannot.... Unless there is a standing mechanism that does
the background work, provide space for discussions and moving
positions forward, and then facilitate public policy making - as
CICCP does for OECD.... There is nothing like that for developing
countries.... and the UN is the place which such a body equivalent
to CCICP of OECD should be placed. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is part of the national sovereignty or - to be correct - part of the jus cogens principles of "sovereign equality" es enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant UN Declaration on International Law Principles from 1970 which has a detailed definition of the seven jus cogens principles.</pre>
</blockquote>
The current OECD/ CoE led 'global' policy development violates these
principles in practice... That is the problem. And the need is to
restore the equality of all countries, which can only be done by
shifting what OECD/ CoE does today in terms of 'global' Internet
policy to the UN. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> BTW the seven principles include also the jus cogens principel of the "duty to international cooperation" and leads to the "no harm-principle" in the Internet world ( a certain limitation of sovereignty) which we also discussed at length within the COE. This is not new and will remain as long as the UN exists.
What has changed is the environment in which governments operate. And if it comes to the Internet, this environemnt has many layers and many players. In an article - ten years ago - I called it the M³C³ (Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration). Governments have to adjust their policy and decision making to this new environment. And this includes that they have nowadays to coordinate their policy not only with other governments but have also to share their decision making capacity with other stakeholders. This is new, indeed. But this is what the govenrments agreed in Tunis when they accepted the IG definition, proposed by the WGIG. This will not come overnight. Insofar, to have a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) linked to the IGF with a (limited) decision making capacity would be - in my eyes - an interesting move into the still unchartered territory of multistakeholder decision making and the next realistic and lo
gical step in the long march towards a new global governance system of the 21st century.
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Mo 25.11.2013 14:18
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; <,<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>,
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit
On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
Parminder:
To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms.
Wolfgang:
Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger?
IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/MC-S-CI%20Interim%20Report.pdf"><http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/MC-S-CI%20Interim%20Report.pdf></a> on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the European IGF, to do it?
In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' ""International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries."
That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms.
In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* develops
1, General principles on Internet governance
2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 'oversight' issue)
The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE "to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or re inforce the protection of cross border flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>