<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Bill<br>
<br>
I see both you and Avri say that some things need inter gov and
some MS systems, to which I agree. But that brings us to the main
point that I have been trying to stress; it of course cannot be
left to the (situational) fancy of people, groups and institutions
which issues and when should be addressed by one form of
governance structure and which/when the other. Such a
determination obviously must be based on some principles , and I
have been trying to frame some, admittedly in a simple way. We
cannot just say that some should be done this way and others that
- that amounts to venue or forum shopping, a very negative feature
of any political system, where those who have the most power can
move between different kinds of forums or forms of governance, as
best suits them. Which is what happens today in the global IG
space. When the UN is involved, rich countries say inter gov is
bad and this form should not be applied to Internet governance,
but then they deal similar issues in an inter gov manner at forums
like OECD and EU/ CoE - and worse, at the very opaque plurilateral
trade deals. <br>
<br>
We need a rules based system, the rules themselves being based on
higher principles, which of course would be of democracy, to
determine what kind of global IG architecture is best suited for
promoting global public interest. However, not much gets spoken
about such principles and rules which could help us determine
different kinds of systems for different kind of IG issues -
technical to social-political being a key spectrum. Most arguments
take a stock MS or inter gov view and simply go past one another.
It is good to explore a more sophisticated larger principles based
view.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 04 February 2015 05:08 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B0BE6E3E-4E4F-4CAB-AEEF-90632C081133@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi
Last quick time around for me as I have to pack and go to the airport.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Sean O Siochru <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sean@nexus.ie"><sean@nexus.ie></a> wrote:
A 'binding decision' mean different things, especially in the context of the internet. I did say that I would favour a shift in the direction of decisions by (democratic and genuine) consensus among all stakeholders - and would include some of the areas for decision that you, Bill, mention.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Which orgs like ICANN do via contracts after extensive inputs from governments as well as stakeholders.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
But even intergovernmental organisations have 'binding' decision undermined by the evolution of technology or maneuvering of others. e.g. government can agree what they like between them, but wider dynamics can simply sweep that aside (which is not always a bad thing). The history of telecommunications in the last 30 years is a prime example of that (remember accounting rates and all the other and the scramble to the ITU to stay relevant).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sure
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Second 'binding' decisions can also mean decisions by monopoly or oligopolies corporations that in effect dictate that way things are for the vast majority of people (Microsoft, google, facebook etc.).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Right and in some such cases public policy may be the appropriate response, in others you may be able to get better results through a non-PP governance approach, depends what we’re talking about.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:33 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
I see no contradiction between what you say and my statements. Yes, these above are all inter gov decision making systems, because they deal with core economic-social-political aspects of e-commerce. The rest below that you mention deal with the more technical aspects of e-com, and can appropriately have expertise based structures. We indeed agree here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Which happens from time to time. Scary and disorienting, huh? :-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
(1) For those Internet related public policy issues that are of a core social-political nature we need inter gov systems with appropriate stakeholder consultative participation (as in OECD/ EC that you refer to above).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
For me, it depends which core social-political issues we’re talking about. For example, at a general level privacy is obviously one, but some privacy issues like working out rules for WHOIS and its replacement I’d rather see tackled on a multistakeholder basis with government input. In contrast broader data protection should be the purview of governments with extensive stakeholder input. I think the optimal geometry of roles and responsibilities is variable and dynamic, which is why a fixed and static formulation per WSIS is problematic.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And
(2) For technical/ operational decision making, any conflict or interface with issues of public policy nature will require special rules-based arms-length political oversight systems of some kind.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Again for me it depends what we’re talking about. In ICANN I think the GAC has quite enough influence now and often uses it poorly, so I wouldn’t want to see it grown out to some more unilateral form of command and control.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or not.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
And the answer is, it depends (sorry).
Cheers
Bill
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>