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

[parminder]

Wolfgang,

This is a useful dialogue....

responses below.


On Monday 25 November 2013 09:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> 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.

Did you ask for CoE principles to be 'globalised'!? Please see Carlos's 
intervention in this regard during the WGEC meeting. Developing 
countries - civil society and governments - resent such a procedure - of 
Europe making the principles, and then 'globalising' them. Isnt this 
undemocratic and unfair.

And at the same time, you do not agree to a 'similar' global procedure 
of Internet principles and policies development with all countries 
involved... On what basis. This is what we are talking about here.
>   
> My approach is that today´s intergovernmental treaty system (and relevant intergovernmental mechanisms) are meanwhile embedded into a multistakeholder environment.

Agree. Things take shape, and rise from this multistakeholder 
environment and then, if and when, public policy decisions are needed, 
governments take them. I understand that this is what you are saying 
below. Am I right?

> This does NOT lead to the disapperance of the intergovenrmental treaty system.

CoE and OECD have standing mechanisms to help develop Internet-related 
policy related treaties when needed. UN does not have such a mechanism. 
CIRP like proposals are calls to have such a facilitating standing 
mechanism. Without such mechanism, it will always be CoE and OECD that 
will make Internet policy related treaties, or policy frameworks, and 
then other countries will be kind of forced to join in.... Simply 
because developing countries are left with no mechanism to even prepare 
for and initiate such a process. This is deliberate ham-shackling of 
developing countries - to put then in  a position of permanent 
dependency. That is the main point I am making.

> 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.

No they cannot.... Unless there is a standing mechanism that does the 
background work, provide space for discussions and moving positions 
forward, and then facilitate public policy making - as CICCP does for 
OECD.... There is nothing like that for developing countries.... and the 
UN is the place which such a body equivalent to CCICP of OECD should be 
placed.

> 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.
The current OECD/ CoE led 'global' policy development violates these 
principles in practice... That is the problem. And the need is to 
restore the equality of all countries, which can only be done by 
shifting what OECD/ CoE does today in terms of 'global' Internet policy 
to the UN.

parminder

>   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".
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131128/b0624aaf/attachment.htm>