[governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position

[Parminder]

Ralf:

 

I agree there are no easy answer here. And the notion of legitimacy that you
offer - of representation and of deliberation are fine, except that the
legitimacy of 'deliberation' can extend to the many functions that CS
normally performs but not to actual decisions on public policy which affect
the lives of people in many ways. However the 'deliberation' function has
many ways of exercising 'soft power' or power by influence on public policy.
And we all know of the many ways there are of doing that. And we need to
find ways to use this soft power more efficiently. 

 

But we cannot see legitimacy of 'deliberation' replacing that of
'representation' though necessarily there should be a good and effective
interface between two. 

 

I also believe that we need not remain tethered to the past - and the
context and the opportunity of an emerging IS should be used to evolve more
fair and equitable forms of governance. So your suggestion of proposing IG
systems that are "mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the
multi-stakeholder approach of WGIG" is quite useful. Indeed, IG forum with a
good interface with political oversight function as well as with technical
and resource allocation function is a good start. 

 

But we can make this progression only if

 

1.    we proceed from known ‘representation’ based governance systems and
improve systems of its accountability to its constituents – and of course
the CS has a big role here. 

2.    the CS appreciates the political nature of issues involved, and works
with that sensitivity  

 

As for how ICANN works at present, please see papers by IG project on how it
has blatantly served US government’s public policy interests and that of the
corporate world, and see recent paper by Hans Klein on how ICANN was often
captured by private corporates. We have seen how ineffective its processes
of selection of its members is – even in terms of representation of what it
calls the ‘internet community’ And as I keep repeating that ICANN’s
conception of who all are to be considered the stakeholders in IG (Internet
user community) is not at all acceptable – every single person in the world
is a stakeholder here. Everyone is impacted by Internet today – directly or
indirectly, in the present or potentially. 

 

And all these issues are not small issues that we disregard them  in making
our position for future IG regime -  putting faith in some reformed ICANN
which is expected to emerge - and keep rooting for ICANN to hold all IG
related public policy functions – which are going to become more and more
important as IS develops. 

 

And to your question – what exactly I am suggesting, I have following to
say

.

 

I am only suggesting what the above referred (IG project, and Hans Klein)
academic papers suggest. To establish the rule of law – to begin a process
of framework convention / treaty to develop the institutional framework for
IG. And have a very great input of CS into this process, so that we could
try and get some new age governance system which are representative but also
open in all other means. It wont be easy, but I will like to see the context
of new institutional systems for IG to be  a path-breaker for governance
systems in other areas like trade, IPR, etc. 

 

As for ICANN it can stay on as it is (more reformed the better) for resource
allocation and technical functions within the needed political oversight. 

 

My organization, IT for Change, has submitted this position on behalf of the
Gender Caucus to WSIS process in response to the WGIG report. And a similar
position is now being debated inside GC and is already endorsed by IT for
Change and FEMNET of Africa and submitted to some governments. The parts on
oversight are on the following lines.

 

 

*         Internet is a global resource and an infrastructure to be shared
and owned equally by all. The US must give up its pre-eminent position in IG
oversight. This role must be taken up by an inter-governmental body.   

*         ·       Since the nature and challenges of IG are of an entirely
new kind, this oversight body should be a new body created for this purpose.
This IG public policy and oversight body must be anchored in the UN. 

*         ·       This oversight body should have strong interface and
processes of interaction with the ‘forum’ – which will act as an advisory
body for it.

*         ·       There should be no interference in the day to day
functioning of the IG, managed by bodies doing the technical management. 

*         ·       The oversight interventions will not be ad-hoc and will be
based on clearly laid out principles and rules, with complete transparency
and accountability. 

*         ·       To evolve such principles and rules of developing public
policy and making oversight interventions, a treaty/ convention process must
be mandated. The forum should have an important role in this process. 

*         ·       Freedom of expression, privacy, and such basic human
rights should form a part of the framework for making IG public policy and
oversight. 

*         ·       Commercial issues implicated in the use of Internet have
to be balanced with issues of securing social justice and equality, on the
principle that Internet is first of all a shared resource that belongs to
everyone equitably, and which should serve the greatest public interest. 

*         ·       A proper process of transition from the present structure
that preserves the important and necessary elements of the present IG regime
should be put in place.  

 

Regards

 

Parminder 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:32 PM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position

 

Parminder wrote:

 

> The position that is being proposed is that the public

> policy functions now with the US government be taken from it, and then 

> ICANN becomes the global public policy making body for all functions of 

> IG without any external political oversight. 

Good point, and thanks for pushing this debate, Parminder.

 

(...)

> There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real 

> global governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where 

> civil society representatives sit as voting members. 

It is not romanticism, it is the the way ICANN currently works.

Governments in the GAC are only advising. (Leaving aside the oversight of

the USG, but we want to get rid of that one anyway.)

 

> This is absurd.

Don't be too harsh here, see below.

 

> CS has to have greater and greater interfaces with global (and national) 

> governance systems in a way that it can advise, input proposals, extract 

> accountablity etc, but to think that we should actually take up decision 

> making responsibilities is politically naïve, and raises questions about 

> our legitimacy.

This is exactly the 1 Million Euro question: What is legitimate?

- The UN system, where the Chinese government representing 1.5 billion

people has as many votes as Iceland with 300,000?

- The UN system, where many governments are not representing anyone,

because they never got properly elected?

- A private system, where in the end, the board can do as it likes?

- A multistakeholder system, where nobody knows who can be held

accountable in the end?

- A direct global election system, as ICANN tried in 2000?

- what else?

 

There are basically two notions of legitimacy here. One is based on

representation (more or less the intergovernmental model), and here we can

not win, of course. The other one is based on deliberation, where the open

exchange of arguments counts, and this is where we do much better than any

government. So what is absurd and what not is depending on the perspective.

 

As Bertrand, Wolfgang and others have pointed out many times, WSIS and

especially the IG issue offer a great chance to come up with a new global

governance model that goes beyond the system of nation-states. I of course

have no answer here, but I think at least oversight should be done in a

mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the

multistakeholder approach of WGIG. I know this is not enough, but it gives

a general idea.

 

A question in return: What exactly are you suggesting? (Maybe I've missed

it if you have answered this already)

 

Best, Ralf

 

_______________________________________________

governance mailing list

governance at lists.cpsr.org

https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051107/d6aef3d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance