<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Where I think Bertrand has a point in his hermeneutic exercise ;) of para 35a of the Tunis Agenda, is that in the context of nation-states there is no such thing as "international sovereignty" unless this is meant to refer to the international recognition of a state's sovereignty (or maybe by a recognized formal mechanism to delegate national sovereignty to a supranational body.) The fact is, such mechanism does not exist in the case of the GAC, nor did WSIS set up that kind of body. Therefore we can reasonably presume that whenever state sovereignty is claimed in this context, it is being claimed over national jurisdiction (in other words, domestic policy may legitimately be presumed or inferred from the mere reference to "sovereignty" in that first sentence of para 35a.) Now, accepting this to be true does not prevent any government from pursuing their wildest dreams to gain or claim soverignty over international public policy matters (which quickly leads to contradictions and conflicts that precisely defeat the purposes of the Westphalian concept.) While such claim may be considered as clear evidence of the objective of those particular governments, I fail to see why it should be considered as evidence of our understanding of a globally negotiated text being wrong.<br>
<br></div><div>This is the same basis for why the GAC advice to ICANN is not sovereign, no matter how hard GAC members would like to pretend it is --and irrespective of their sovereignty wrt to their national laws and domestic PP. In other words, GAC members can object to ICANN's policies if they contradict, eg, existing national laws and they are meant to apply over entities that are legally responsive to that state or to interfere with the enforcement of national legal provisions (*), but they can't or certainly shouldn't be able to use ICANN processes to claim and exercise such sovreignty in international public policy. <br>
</div><div><br></div><div>I do not think however that anyone in their right mind here believes this battle won, and that we are happily living in a harmonious post-sovereignty era of international politics and public policy. Didn't we just fight hard to be included as CS in one of those processes, last December? <br>
</div><div><br></div>Now, the good news (as we all seem to recognize) is that we do not need to all agree on a textual interpretation of TA before we can move forward in various fashions of cooperation.<br><br></div>Best,<br>
<br></div>Mawaki<br><br></div>(*) Even in that case, ICANN Board may not take such objection into account in the final decision, but I believe they then have to explain why... if I'm not mistaken. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com" target="_blank">diegocanabarro@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"><font face="Verdana">This thread is very enlightening. But, Bertrand, I would like to ask you for one clarification over the following statement: </font></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(51,51,51)">"The challenge today is to refine the mechanisms that allow to manage shared international resources and cross-border online spaces, not to reimpose a rigid separation of westphalian sovereignties and the exclusive responsibility of diplomats to define global governance regimes. "</span></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></span></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(51,51,51)">How should one deal with the fact that the "definition of global governance regimes" is, itself, an integral part of public policy making within national jurisdictions as well?</span></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></span></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Regards</span></div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.727272033691406px"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Diego</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"><font face="Verdana"><br></font></span></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:<a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">As we all know, this famous paragraph says: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#333333">Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public
policy issues. (aka IRPPI)</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#333333">There are two sentences here.
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">Not just one, but two sentences. And this has to be meaningful. </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">The paragraph could easily have read : "Policy authority for national and international Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of states". That would have
closed the debate and left no room for interpretation. But this is not what is written. </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">MM:
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Bertrand.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">First, I forgive you for creating a new acronym that vies for recognition as one of the world's ugliest: IIRPPI.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Now, I cannot go along with these kinds of verbal games as a guide to what governments intended or, more importantly, what governments actually believe and
try to enact. It is just wishful thinking.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As a matter of linguistic interpretation, your argument rests on very shaky ground. The basic subject of the sentence is the term "policy authority." Not "domestic"
or "international" policy authority, just "policy authority." The term "Internet-related public policy issues" could easily be read to mean ALL internet-related public policy issues, both domestic and international. There is a bald assertion that "policy authority
for IRPPI is the sovereign right of states." Not domestic IRPPI, just IRPPI. Therefore your idea (and this is the first time I have ever heard that interpretation) that the first sentence applies to domestic and the second to international is very _<i>creative</i>_
shall we say. But not convincing. At all.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Further, we have tons of other contexts in which to interpret the claim of "policy authority" or the idea that "public policy" is the exclusive domain of states.
Let's take, for starters, ICANN's own bylaws. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Section 2.1.a. of Article XI says
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span>a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span><u></u>The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various
laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Note that this section specifically mentions "laws, international agreements or….public policy issues." In other words, PP is distinct from law and international
agreements and there is no distinction in GAC's mandate between domestic and international; indeed, since everything ICANN does is de facto global, the concept of "public policy" in its bylaws MUST apply to international or global pp.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">And you know as well as I that in the ICANN context GAC's trump card is the PP word. All they have to do is claim that something is PP and they get to claim
authority over the final outcome. At which point GAC becomes nothing more than an intergovernmental organization that dictates PP - only it is, in fact, far worse than any IGO because it is governed by no law, subject to no treaty ratification process, and
can make decisions that violate the constitutions of specific countries while giving citizens of those countries no legal recourse.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">And how about this WCIT resolution - unsuccessful, to be sure, but reflecting what the sovereigntist states really think and believe. There was a motion in
Dubai to add the following phrase to the International Telecommunication Regulations:
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">"3A.3 Member states shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance…."<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Our point of disagreement does not seem to be substantive, in that we would both like to clear a space for new, more open, non-governmental policy making institutions.
Where we disagree - and it is an important disagreement - is that you seem to think we have already succeeded in transcending the sovereigntist mindset, and I do not.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I think we are still deeply engaged in a major long term struggle over that principle. We need to explicitly recognize that we are in that struggle and not
twist the words of the TA to make it seem as if we have already won. I also think that we are in danger of losing that battle because a very large segment of the people trying to move away from the governmental paradigm are not thinking clearly about it. They
are relying on flawed, wrong statements of principle such as the Tunis Agenda or, worse, mouthing platitudes about "The Multistakeholder Model" when there is no single, well-defined MuSH model and the issue of whether MuSH gives states exclusive authority
over "public policy" making and confines other SH to "their respective roles" is still a topic of intense debate.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">In a nutshell, the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national interests; national governments are very legitimate
<u>local</u> authorities but at best, assemblies of government representatives are, at the global level, the equivalent of a Senate in bi-cameral parliamentary systems; for a truly democratic international system, a more direct involvement of citizens at the
global level is necessary (and it is made possible by the development of communication tools and transportation); their respective governments cannot keep the monopoly of representation of their interests.</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Here we are in violent agreement - although I would not even give states the status of a separate house in a bi-cameral political structure. States do not have
rights but are merely delegates of individuals - would you propose also a "corporation house"? I think individuals who happen to work for governments can and should participate on the same basis as everyone else. As in, e.g., the IETF.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">Considering that all internet-related issues should be dealt within a single international organization can only lead to a sterile and protracted competition between potential
candidate institutions and no solution to concrete challenges.</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">The only viable approach is rather to build on the concept of distributed governance frameworks, and build issue-based governance networks, associating in a transparent and accountable manner
the "relevant stakeholders".</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Yes, networks focused on specific issues.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">What those frameworks are, what form their establishment takes (Mutual Affirmation of Commitments?), how the "relevant stakeholders" are determined, how the decision-making
procedures function, etc... are the real and very exciting challenges. </span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Agreed.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br></div></div><div class="im">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">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></div></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Diego R. Canabarro<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left"><a href="http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597" target="_blank">http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597</a></span> </font><br>
<br>--<br>diego.canabarro [at] <a href="http://ufrgs.br" target="_blank">ufrgs.br</a></div><div>diego [at] <a href="http://pubpol.umass.edu" target="_blank">pubpol.umass.edu</a><br>MSN: diegocanabarro [at] <a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a><br>
Skype: diegocanabarro<br>Cell # <a href="tel:%2B55-51-9244-3425" value="+555192443425" target="_blank">+55-51-9244-3425</a> (Brasil) / <a href="tel:%2B1-413-362-0133" value="+14133620133" target="_blank">+1-413-362-0133</a> (USA)<br>
--<br></div>
</font></span></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></div>