Garth,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the comment. <br><div><br></div><div>E. Ostrom's design principles are typically what participants of a working group could introduce under the bullet point : "identification of possible principles guiding the setting up of EC frameworks". Indeed EC frameworks for Critical Internet Resources could be a type of Ostrom's CPR (common pool resource) frameworks; however, all IG issues are not common pool issues.</div>
<div><br></div><div>More later if time comes.</div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>B.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Garth Graham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:garth.graham@telus.net" target="_blank">garth.graham@telus.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 2012-05-21, at 4:32 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<br>
> Further points to address<br>
><br>
> Should those conditions be agreed upon and the CSTD willing to go in the direction of setting up such a group, other questions to be explored include:<br>
> • what should be the scope/mandate of such a group? useful suggestions heard in the open consultation on May 18 included:<br>
> • elaborating a better shared understanding of the concept of Enhanced Cooperation and the issues it covers<br>
> • a mapping exercise of existing instances of Enhanced Cooperation<br>
> • an identification of possible principles guiding the setting up of Enhanced Cooperation Frameworks<br>
> • how open such a WG will be and in particular how it will solicit inputs from non-members and inform them of its process?<br>
> • where such a working group would be attached (proposals include: the Chair of the CSTD, the IGF, the UN SG) and who would chair it?<br>
> • how such an exercise should leverage/interact with the IGF?<br>
> • how and to whom it should report to, and in what form?<br>
><br>
> To avoid future misunderstanding, any draft resolution discussed in Geneva this week needs to address these issues as clearly as possible.<br>
<br>
</div>A practical and excellent synthesis of the issues within the framework of the discussion's own terms, but aren't those terms the essence of the problem? Instead of being trapped into playing by the rules, shouldn't "further points to address" include what next to alter the framework? When does it become time to apply (as I know you want to) Eleanor Ostrom's eight design principles of stable local common pool resource management to the analysis of the utility any such working group whether they like it or not?<br>
• Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);<br>
• Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;<br>
• Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;<br>
• Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;<br>
• A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;<br>
• Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;<br>
• Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities;<br>
• In the case of larger common-pool resources,organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
GG</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>____________________<br>Bertrand de La Chapelle<div>Program Director, International Diplomatic Academy</div><div>Member, ICANN Board of Directors <br>
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 greater mission for humans than uniting humans")</div><br>
</div></div>