<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 89.85pt 72.0pt 89.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Dear all,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>A very interesting discussion indeed –
everything from political philosophy to political invective!</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Since Bertrand kindly provided a link to
the summary of a presentation I made at the Oxford Internet Institute a year
ago on the theme of “Where Now? A Rough Guide to Internet Governance
Post-WSIS”, I thought it might be helpful to provide the attached version
of the presentation slides. It includes detailed talking points, which may be
helpful in understanding the bullets.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I’ve also attached a position paper prepared
for a May 2005 OII forum on “The Struggle Over Internet Governance:
Searching for Common Ground”. It proposes going in a similar direction to
the one Jovan and Bertrand have suggested – namely, towards an IG protocol
modeled on the Internet itself. Bill Dutton and Malcolm Peltu’s report of
this event, entitled “Connecting the Pieces: The Emerging Internet
Governance Mosaic”, may also be of interest – particularly the
intriguing notion that IG is characterized by an “ecology of governance
games”. It’s available in pdf at <a
href="http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications.cfm">http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/publications.cfm</a>.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hope all of this helps feed this
thought-provoking discussion!</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Don MacLean</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> Bertrand de La Chapelle
[mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>April 23, 2007</span></font><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>10:54 AM</span></font><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> governance@lists.cpsr.org;
Jovan Kurbalija<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance] A few
reflections on the Framework Convention</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dear all,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Following the discussion
on the Framework Convention and recalling the workshope in Athens on that
subject, one of the problems people raise is the term Convention - as it seems
to imply a traditional intergovernmental discussion and this runs contrary to the
multi-stakeholder approach that has been sanctionned by the WSIS in Tunis.
In any case, there is no apparent benefit in making the notion of a
Convention a prerequisite for moving forward : it is a perfectly legitimate
option to formalize an Internet Governance Framework, but one
among many. Other terms may apply (Agreement, MOU, Charter, Bill of rights,
Covenant, etc...) and we could even create one. </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>On the other
hand, the term framework is a nice general term, at least for the time
being, encompassing very different aspects of how Internet Governance should be
organized. It accomodates those who want highly formalized or even
centralized structures and those who would like a distibuted system with simple
rules.It basically deals with the Principles, norms, rules and decision-making
procedures for Internet Governance itself, ie its institutional architecture. </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In that respect, one can
argue that and Internet Governance Framework already exists, defined by
history, documents and practices, including (without priority order) :</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- the WSIS documents,
including all their relevant paragraphs on Internet Governance</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- a few principles, norms
and rules, sometimes implicit sometimes explicit (as Don MacLean outlined
in one of his presentations; see : <a
href="http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/events/details.cfm?id=4">http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/events/details.cfm?id=4
</a>)</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- the three main existing
organizations : including ICANN, ITU and now the new IGF, with their respective
bylaws, mandates and charters)</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- plus numerous other
organizations dealing with Internet -related issues, intergovernmental
(WIPO, UNESCO) or not (IETF, W3C, etc...)</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- decision-making
procedures within each of those organizations, including Policy Development
Processes and various Process Documents ....</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>One of the key questions
in that context is not the absence of a framework, but how to improve it,
including the coordination of the activities of international and
intergovernmental organizations concerned with Internet Governance issues.
</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Finally, as Wolfgang and
I have often mentionned, 2010 is an interesting time horizon, milestone or
checkpoint, however you want to qualify it :</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- the ICANN JPA will end
in 2009 </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- the ITU's next
plenipotentiary is in 2010</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>- and the IGF will review
its first five years</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>So the key question is
not to design a new framework from scratch. It is simply to examine the two
following questions :</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>1) how the
present framework should evolve in the coming years ?</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>2) how this
architecture should be formalized (convention ? agreement
? MoU(s) ? Protocol ? etc..) </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
"The Internet Governance Framework in 2010" seems a natural and
legitimate topic for the IGF, as para 72i of its mandates requests that the IGF
"Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet governance processes." </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Maybe this is part of the
way forward. Hope it helps. Nice discussion thread anyway.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Best</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Bertrand</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><span class=gmailquote><font
size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>On 4/23/07, <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>Jovan Kurbalija</span></b> <<a
href="mailto:jovank@diplomacy.edu">jovank@diplomacy.edu</a>> wrote:</span></font></span>
</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:
36.0pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Quite
an interesting exchange on the Framework Convention! Sorry for posting<br>
this message out of the discussion sync. Here are a few points. <br>
<br>
<br>
I share Bill's concern about using analogies with other regimes (mainly<br>
climate change and tobacco). Analogies are usually tricky. They highlight<br>
commonalities and hide differences. One useful logical exercise could be to <br>
make an "analogy map" showing both commonalities and differences. I
won't<br>
repeat commonalities which were already mentioned by John, Miltion, Lee and<br>
others. Instead, I will mention a few differences or specificities of IG. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. What should the FC regulate?<br>
<br>
The FC shares the destiny of the field it should regulate - Internet<br>
Governance. It is difficult to define. Other framework conventions have a<br>
clearly defined regulatory area (issue to be addressed). For example, the <br>
Climate Change FC does not regulate the environment in general. Article 2<br>
clearly defines the single issue to be addressed:<br>
<br>
".... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at
a<br>
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the<br>
climate system....."<br>
<br>
<br>
The framework convention approach is used for specific purposes - e.g. to<br>
avoid controversial issues in the first iteration (building
trust), to <br>
allow more time to negotiate technically complex issues. The conventions are<br>
not vague about the subject of negotiations. One could think about an FC on<br>
spam or Internet infrastructure, but not on IG in general. It seems that the <br>
main argument for the IG FC is driven by form/procedure, not by the issues<br>
to be addressed. This was not the case with climate change and<br>
tobacco/smoking conventions. One possible way to make a reality check is to <br>
draft the basic elements of the FC on IG (we can use a WIKI for drafting<br>
purposes). Once faced with "paper" we can see if the FC will be
"worth the<br>
paper it is written on."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. Is the FC on IG the only way to integrate IG into international public <br>
law (e.g. relations among countries)?<br>
<br>
There is a wide spectrum of possible techniques apart from<br>
treaties/conventions. Various "soft law" techniques have been
extensively<br>
discussed. Even in the realm of "hard law" one can argue that
international <br>
customary rule guarantees national states rights over country domains. We<br>
can find many examples to support the following two criterions for<br>
establishing international customary rules:<br>
<br>
- on-going practice (the re-delegation process has put many countries in <br>
charge of country domains);<br>
<br>
- opinion iuris (awareness that practice is legally binding) can be<br>
supported by one of the US-government principles from June 2005 (unilateral<br>
declarations are a source of international law as well) as well as by the <br>
WSIS final documents.<br>
<br>
What is the practical relevance of the international customary law? If a<br>
country's right over country domain is infringed, the country can bring the<br>
case to the International Court of Justice and prove the existence of the <br>
customary law rule. (In order not to oversimplify, I have to stress that the<br>
establishment of the ICJ jurisdiction requires some pre-requisites -<br>
country's readiness to accept ICJ's jurisdiction, etc.).<br>
<br>
As a matter of fact, one can argue that one of the most controversial issue<br>
of the IG debate - national control of country domain - has been already<br>
settled (quietly, with necessary "face saving" mechanisms). Some UN <br>
declaration may help in reinforcing this customary rule, but the FC on IG<br>
would be overkill.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
3. Multistakeholderism<br>
<br>
The major difference between negotiations regarding Internet Governance<br>
(narrow definition) and other global negotiations, such as climate change <br>
negotiations, is that, while in other negotiations, inter-governmental<br>
regimes gradually opened to non-governmental players, in Internet governance<br>
negotiations, governments had to enter an already existing non-governmental, <br>
ICANN-based regime. I am not sure that the FC can be the most suitable means<br>
for reflecting this substantive difference.<br>
<br>
<br>
There are other aspects. time and "ripeness" for negotiations which
have <br>
been already discussed.<br>
<br>
This is all for this iteration. I hope it will contribute to more informed<br>
discussion. Best, Jovan<br>
<br>
</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Bertrand de La Chapelle</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33
32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") </span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>