[bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

[Matthew Shears]

Thanks Wolfgang - very well articulated and reflective of the realities 
we face.


Wolfgang:

The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.

The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions.

However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.

If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987