Dear all,<br><br>I think this thread is a good way forward. I encourage you to continue in this line of thinking.<br><br>I also think that it is really necessary to grasp the big picture and to exercise our imagination to start creating useful frameworks for the future.<br>
<br>Probably, as Norbert put it one way to move forward is thinking about public interest goals and objectives.<br><br>In a more specific issue, I would suggest that a clearer and comprehensive definition in terms of all stakeholders of enhanced cooperation, although it may need ambiguities, is necessary. I would expect something can be done by WSIS + 10. This also goes in the same direction Wolfgang is referring to the multi-stakeholder "Framework of Commitments".<br>
<br>Best,<br><br>Miguel<br><br>Disclaimer<br>My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de" target="_blank">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks Norbert,<br>
<br>
I share most of your views. Already in Tunis the were two layers in the ambigues languge of "enhanced cooperation" (the "intergovernmental level" based on a "narrow definition" of ICANN issues and the "multistakeholder level" based on the broad IG definition, which was proposed by WGIG and confirmed by the Tunis agenda. The fact that we discuss now - seven years later - the option of a muiltistakeholder "Framework of Comittments" (FoC) where all stakeholders are invited to commit themselves to a number of high level (legally non-binding) guiding principles, reflects this process. Stumbling foreward. :-)))<br>
<br>
Wolfgang<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
Von: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow<br>
Gesendet: Mi 28.11.2012 16:26<br>
An: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Ginger Paque<br>
Cc: michael gurstein<br>
Betreff: Re: [governance] On strategic thinking again (was Re: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127</a> )<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Ginger,<br>
<br>
Is this statement useful for your needs?<br>
<br>
"I'm firmly in the middle between Michael's options #2 and #3".<br>
<br>
Or with a bit more elaboration:<br>
<br>
"At the technical level there is nowadays no clear boundary line<br>
between what ITU is doing in regard to telephony and probably<br>
everyone agrees ITU should continue to do, and some aspects of what<br>
is clearly Internet governance and ITU cannot effectively do (if<br>
for no other reasons because so much fear of the ITU has been<br>
created)."<br>
<br>
In my submission to the ITU I have suggested a way of introducing a<br>
rather artificial boundary line (the main idea being to limit the scope<br>
of applicability of the ITRs to what is done while using telephone<br>
numbers for addressing purposes) which will not really help too much in<br>
getting exiting and future public interest challenges addressed well,<br>
but which should at least make it possible to get reality and the ITRs<br>
aligned again:<br>
<a href="http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-08/msg00002.html" target="_blank">http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-08/msg00002.html</a><br>
(The importance of getting rid of the need for creatively interpreting<br>
the ITRs in ways that contradict what the text of the ITRs actually<br>
says should be clear... how else can the ITRs be part of an effective<br>
governance system for anything?)<br>
<br>
But it's not just telephony that's becoming increasingly hard to<br>
differentiate from Internet governance. The same is happening to<br>
policy on international trade, to international diplomacy on human<br>
rights matters, to media policy (which is extremely important because<br>
democracy needs a credible variety of trustworthy and free media), etc.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, we really need to create a mechanism of enhanced<br>
cooperation on international public policy issues, because the<br>
mechanisms of the industrial age (including, but not limited to the<br>
ITU) are not meeting today's needs. I understand that at the time when<br>
the Tunis agenda was drafted with just the right amount of creative<br>
ambiguity, people were thinking of the unresolved concerns surrounding<br>
ICANN when the words "enhanced cooperation" were put there. But the<br>
realm of unresolved Internet-related public interest concerns is much<br>
larger today.<br>
<br>
Specifically, in comparison to the industrial age mechanisms of<br>
international cooperation, I would emphasize needs for enhancements<br>
with regard to the following aspects:<br>
- full transparency and full multistakeholder participation rights and<br>
effective empowerment of global civil society participation (by means<br>
of either doing all the *international coordination* work<br>
electronically via the Internet, or by providing travel funding for<br>
all public interest advocates who can demonstrate subject matter<br>
competence and independence of the particular interests of the<br>
various big companies).<br>
- use of logical strategic thinking tools (such as those of the Theory<br>
of Constraints).<br>
- focus the *international coordination* processes on creating good<br>
input documents for informing the work of national parliaments where<br>
the hard work would take place of choosing the balance between<br>
conflicts of interest (as opposed to internationally negotiating<br>
take-it-or-leave-it treaties).<br>
<br>
The world of now+5years will, for better or worse, be significantly<br>
different from todays's world. The same will be true to an even greater<br>
extent about the world of today+10years.<br>
<br>
I think that we really need to have our eyes open as we go forward.<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<br>
Ginger Paque <<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
> Norbert, I understand your point (I think), but I wonder if that<br>
> boils down to #2? (Which I agree with Ian is what we want, even if I<br>
> differ on the strategy needed to get there). Mike's 3 options are<br>
> simplifications, but the are useful for this discussion (at least for<br>
> me). Can you put #4 into a simpler statement, if you don't agree that<br>
> it is part of #2 (and, please, not 'none of the above' :)).<br>
><br>
> I like this step back from the complexities. Generalizations<br>
> sometimes have a place for a synthesis/snapshot of the big picture to<br>
> get things in perspective, without implying that it gives an accurate<br>
> or complete view.<br>
><br>
> Thanks, gp<br>
><br>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu">VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu</a><br>
> Diplo Foundation<br>
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme<br>
> <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu/ig</a><br>
> **<br>
> **<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 28 November 2012 02:15, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Michael Gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in<br>
> > > the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories<br>
> > > they would fall into:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 1. no regulation of the Internet period<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 2. possible regulation/global governance of the<br>
> > > Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 3. regulation of the Internet in certain<br>
> > > identified issue areas by the ITU<br>
> ><br>
> > My view differs from all of those, so I'd like to choose<br>
> ><br>
> > 4. since the boundary line between "Internet governance" and "the<br>
> > various activities of governments and international organizations<br>
> > which are not directly aimed at governance or regulation of the<br>
> > Internet" is becoming increasingly blurred (telecommunications<br>
> > convergence is only the tip of this iceberg IMO), we should take a<br>
> > step back, and think about public interest goals and objectives<br>
> > (stating them in a technology-neutral form that avoids to use the<br>
> > word "Internet" or any explicit or implicit reference to the TCP/IP<br>
> > protocol stack), and on the basis of that about strategies (I'd be<br>
> > very surprised if there is a single public-interest objective in<br>
> > the world today for which the Internet, together with some implied<br>
> > assumptions on what the Internet is assumed to be like, isn't part<br>
> > of every reasonable solution strategy), and on the basis of that<br>
> > about roles and needed reforms of institutions including the ITU,<br>
> > as well as about the formal, legal establishment of whatever<br>
> > principles may be needed (in addition to the many aspects of<br>
> > international human rights law that apply to the Internet).<br>
> ><br>
> > Greetings,<br>
> > Norbert<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ____________________________________________________________<br>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
> ><br>
> > For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>