[governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position

Tue Nov 8 01:02:00 EST 2005

Dear all 

I wrote the message below a few days ago but did not post as I felt I was probably covering 
ground you have all been over repeatedly.  But I am prompted to post it by Ralf's response 
to Parminder on the issue of legitimacy.

Remember also the matter of accountability for decisions once they have been made... this 
also poses a challenge for new forms of governance.

I generally share Ralf's comments, but a few in addition:

- let's try to clarify the framework, rules and regulations around internet governance in such a 
way that they can endure beyond the life cycle of specific institutions... this is why I support 
the notion of a basic framework convention that establishes some basic agreements on 
fundamental rights as they should be applied in IG, and make the legally binding

- this will require greater involvement from governments, but also make them more 
accountable, not just at the rather vague level of IG at global level, but also at the level of IG 
nationally (e.g., if there is a framework convention that states that freedom of expression 
needs to be protected on the internet it will become more difficult for countries to exercise 
content control at national level, and can ultimately further the interests of human rights 
agenda)

- on the issue of governments... I am not crazy about them either, but we need them... and 
as I said in Geneva at the governance caucus event, people who are most resistant to 
government intervention are is often those who live in contexts where governments have 
quite a lot of capacity to deliver public services,  and where basic rights are more or less 
respected 

for those of us who are still struggling for transparency, delivery, accountability, rights, etc., 
engaging actively with government, both in forms that are cooperative and oppositional, is 
the only way of achieving our goals

Anriette

previous message follows

Dear all

A response from me because I think this thread touches on a dillemma we
face in relation to ICT policy and regulation broadly, not simply in the
area of IG.

The position from most Africans involved in the service and user end of
the internet is similar to what Jacqueline describes....  perhaps
stronger.  Governments do not have a great track record in making or
implementing policy.  The regulators are still more focused on restricting
than enabling use... even though there are signs of changes. Most local
ICT operators, small businesses and many civil society organisations in
Africa would rather that governments have as little as possible
involvement in managing the internet, and, in general, that regulation of
ICTs remain as light as possible.

>From a short term perspective I understand and support the approach of
working 'around' governments and I understand people's fear of too much
governmental interference.

But, I don't believe it is sustainable to continue relying on what is
ultimately a rather ad hoc set of rules.  

In the longer term sustained transparent and accountable governance and
regulation has to be located in the public sphere and be based on clearly
understood principles, rules and regulations, and options for recourse and
dispute resolution. This applies to IG as well. 

IG as we know it will change, whatever is decided or not decided re.
oversight in Tunis. And, at the same time as we are debating IG,
technology itself is constantly evolving in ways that often render what is
happening at the IG level seem somewhat out of date and out of touch.

At this point in time ICANN in its present form might seem a better
alternative than rule by governments, many of whom are unlikely to be
transparent, accountable and respectful of fundamental human rights. But
does this mean that privatised rule is the best way of running things
forever? 

The goal of any participative and truly democratic governance process
should be that it levels the playing field, establishes rules that are
widely accepted and understood, and administers them in a way that is
consistent, fair, and that takes into account the differentials in social,
economic and political power within the community of individuals and
institutions that the governance process impacts on.

>From my perspective the interesting challenge that the IG debate presents
is how to establish a mechanism that does this in a different way. To NOT
get locked into binary oppositions between public and private, ITU/UN and
USG, north and south.

What I am interested in is how can we achieve a framework that will ensure
that whoever is involved in governing the internet, from governments to
engineers to dns managers, stick to some fundamental and enforcable rules
that clearly establishes the internet, and what it evolves into in the
future, as a public good/interest utility.

Anriette

> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date:
> 11/5/2005
> 

------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance