<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Milton<br>
<br>
At the highest level I do agree that there is, to some extent, a
new global public made largely possible by the Internet, and
corresponding to it a new global polity, which are worth
conceptualising, and then also pursuing at practical levels. I am
ready to do both theorising and principles building around such an
emergent global public and polity with you, as well as do thought
experiments about how the new political structures should and
could look like....<br>
<br>
Agreed that nation statesd based representation model is imperfect
in the present circumstances. Additional forms of public
representations have to explored and developed. But of course
these new explorations need to be based on some top level
principles. The problem is - and I have articulated it often - I
am yet to hear such top level principles for bringing in non
nation state based public representative to global governance
levels. Neither in fact one sees any progress towards articulating
practical models of what really is meant by when for instance
Wolfgang says that governments should "share their decision making
capacity".<br>
<br>
At the top principles level, two thing come to my mind very
strongly<br>
<br>
1) Means of selection of non gov representatives of the 'global
public' in multistakeholder (MS) processes ( we have seen deep
sensitivity in this group against discussing such things)<br>
<br>
20 Role of businesses or private sector (one cannot understand
that if business is not given a voting role in national polities,
on what basis should they get a voting role in global polity, but
happy to hear justifications)<br>
<br>
(Also see inline)<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 31 March 2013 08:58 AM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Avri<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">As for the CSTD WG EC itself,
as one of those who was honored with the choice, what
is it this group thinks is important? I would really
like to hear what it is this group thinks needs to be
done?<br>
<br>
</span><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Thanks
for posing a useful and constructive question in
this thread. I will elaborate my thoughts in
greater detail in an upcoming blog post analyzing
the ITU-SG report for the WTPF. But in a nutshell,
I am concerned about the extent to which ITU and
certain other advocates of “Enhanced Cooperation”
(EC) are emphasizing the definition of
“multi-stakeholderism” (MuSH) that emerged from
the WSIS – i.e., the definition that reserves
policy making authority to sovereigns and
relegates the rest of to “our respective roles.”
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<i><b>I have some problem with the WSIS 'respective role' definition
but not going to the extent of claiming that all stakeholders
have the same claim to policy making process. Do you say that
they an equal role? If not what differential role do you see? </b></i><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">While I recognize that
these people have the wording of the Tunis Agenda
on their side, the TA was in fact a document
negotiated by and for states, without civil
society or the private sector’s full and equal
participation, or consent, and thus imho it has no
binding authority on the rest of us.</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<i><b>Then perhaps US congress' decisions taken without consulting
your university may also be considered non binding by your
university. </b></i><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> Someone needs to uphold
a more consistent and new-polity approach to MuSH
which emphasizes the legitimacy and authority of
new internet institutions to develop ‘public
policy’,</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is interesting. From below, I understand that by new
institutions you mean ICANN, RIR etc. I agree with the existing
policy making role of these institutions, and most developing
countires like India also agree.... I think it is extremely
important we dont confuse narrow technical policy role with larger
public policy role in non tech areas like net neutrality, data
protection and privacy, ecommerce taxation, cyber security and so
on... Are you saying that these new institutions - ICANN etc -
should have a role in these latter policy areas as well. And if so
such a role should be equal to that of national governments? Pl be
explicit about your policy making model, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">and someone needs to
explain to states that their monopoly on “public
policy” development in their own jurisdictions
does not automatically translate into the same
powers transnationally. </span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again very interesting. BTW, at which level does this power of
nation states cease to be legitimate tran-nationally - at Council of
Europe level, at OECD level, at Trans Pacific Partnerhsip
level...... or is it, only at such levels where all countires are
treated as peers and equals - meaning UN like mutlilateral system.
This is an important point of clarification....<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Unless we take a firmer
stand on this, I fear that Internet institutions
such as the RIRs or ICANN will see it as being in
their interests to strike an accommodation with
sovereigns to give them veto powers or other forms
of arbitrary intervention in putatively bottom-up
policy processes (much as ICANN is already doing).</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, we should stand against any form of arbitrary interventions in
legitimate areas of technical policy making by the ICANN system -
and the root signing authority of the US government and ICANN's
answerability to US jurisdiction today are the two most significant
levers for such 'arbitrary' intervention. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD239FD9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">That’s for starters…;-)<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Insofar as EC is still
about US control of the root – I do think that’s
still important, and should not be swept under the
rug. As you probably know, I still believe that
the answer is not “inter”nationalization but
de-nationalization.
</span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again , pl propose your model. It is difficult to just stand up in
the Working Group and say, we want it trans-nationalised, but right
now we are not sure what is looks like practically. During preceding
discussions I had suggested a few options.<br>
<br>
1- ICANN self declares its independence, and from a given date just
communicatesd all root changes simultaneously to all root zone
operators, and let US gov follow other operators in makng the change
or not (this should go along with better regional distribution of
root operators). The burden of 'not playing along' will then get put
on the US gov. <br>
<br>
2. Root change authourisation is done by a Global Internet Technical
Board, whose members are selected in a somewhat transnational manner
(but not totally separated from national systems - a via media is
reached) <br>
<br>
in either case, either US agrees to do a host country agreement with
ICANN, or ICANN moves to a country which is ready to do it.<br>
<br>
If these options are 'plain silly' - just anticipating your response
- please suggest your options of transnationality.<br>
<br>
Also, pl suggest separately how democratic public policy in non
technical areas, as listed above, can be done transnationally.. As I
have often said, it is these social, economic, cultural policy areas
that are much more important to be than critical Internet resources
related policy making. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>