AW: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi Parminder,
 
thanks for you reply and the reference to the COE background paper. 
 
Indeed, there are numerous governments (also OECD and COE member states) which still believe that the "Status Quo Plus" proposal from the WGIG (that is an intergovernmental Internet council) on top of an hierarchy is the answer to all Internet problems. I disagree. This did not work in 2005. And it will not work in 2014. 
 
As I explained in my final statement before the Council of Europe I argued that the adoption of the COE Internet principles declaration by governments can be only the first step. Such a set of principles has to be "globalized" and "multistakeholderized" to be effective. 
 
My approach is that today´s intergovernmental treaty system (and relevant intergovernmental mechanisms) are meanwhile embedded into a multistakeholder environment. This does NOT lead to the disapperance of the intergovenrmental treaty system. Governments (and parliaments) will continue to be the first stakeholder in making decisions on public policy issues related to the Internet. And governments can enhance their mutual cooperation and agree on issues (if they are able to agree) whatever they want. This is part of the national sovereignty or - to be correct - part of the jus cogens principles of "sovereign equality" es enshrined in  Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant UN Declaration on International Law Principles from 1970 which has a detailed definition of the seven jus cogens principles. BTW the seven principles include also the jus cogens principel of the "duty to international cooperation" and leads to the "no harm-principle" in the Internet world ( a certain limitation of sovereignty) which we also discussed at length within the COE. This is not new and will remain as long as the UN exists. 
 
What has changed is the environment in which governments operate. And if it comes to the Internet, this environemnt has many layers and many players. In an article - ten years ago - I called it the M³C³ (Multilayer Multiplayer Mechanism of Communication, Coordination and Collaboration). Governments have to adjust their policy and decision making to this new environment. And this includes that they have nowadays to coordinate their policy not only with other governments but have also to share their decision making capacity with other stakeholders. This is new, indeed. But this is what the govenrments agreed in Tunis when they accepted the IG definition, proposed by the WGIG. This will not come overnight. Insofar, to have a "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" (MIPOC) linked to the IGF with a (limited) decision making capacity would be - in my eyes - an interesting move into the still unchartered territory of multistakeholder decision making and the next realistic and logical step in the long march towards a new global governance system of the 21st century. 
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Mo 25.11.2013 14:18
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit



On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:


	Parminder:
	To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for  doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms. 
	
	Wolfgang:
	Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger? 


IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report <http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/MC-S-CI%20Interim%20Report.pdf>  on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the European IGF, to do it?

In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' ""International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries." 

That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms.

In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* develops

1, General principles on Internet governance
2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 'oversight' issue)

The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE "to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or re
inforce the protection of cross
border flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality".