[governance] oversight

Mon Oct 17 14:22:06 EDT 2005

Dear Lee,

Good points as usual. 

Agreed, as long as we truly understand how an MOU (not legally binding) or
convention/protocol etc works. Even after a convention or protocol is
signed, it usually still required ratification before it is legally binding
within the country as recognised international law. So if US does not
ratify, they can technically chose not to implement it.

That is why, I think that in addition to looking at an MOU, resolution etc
at WSIS, it would also be good to suggest text at WSIS on what the US should
do to make ICANN an "international body" i.e. get them to sign on to a
certain principle, time frame and process to get ICANN moving towards being
an "international body". Of course, since the current MOU for ICANN is
coming up to renegotiation, that is also where we could ask for something to
be done when their new MOU is being negotiated. In other words, I am
suggesting we be a lttle more specific than just asking for a "host country"
agreement or for an MOU of sorts.

Regards,
Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:13 PM
To: vb at bertola.eu.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] oversight

Hi,

Re a multistakeholder framework convention (and first apologies to Adam and
Karen who are asking us to focus focus focus on text...)

I won't pretend to have a fully fuinctional 'new beast' designed and ready
to go, though of course in the Internet Governance Project we have been
thinking about this for a while.

So first re how constituted, if some some national governments AND some
organizations representative of international business and civil society
interests, eg CONGO and ICC, sign on to launch an Internet framework
convention, it can happen.   Obviously ICANN itself should be at the table,
and there are many many other worthy groups (and indviduals) which could
sign on. Would be nice to have the UN Sec Gen and his reps engage as well,
offer UN support service a la how wsis has been run as it turned into a
bigger deal. This could be done at his discretion; involvement of other UN
orgs would be welcome but of course constrained by their own rules of
procedure.

Basic principle for consensus is that WGIG rules of engagement MUST apply ie
civil society and biz contributions are the same as an intervention from a
government. If not, no reason for civil society or biz to sit at this table.
And given that the net's composed of many many private networks, not to
mention zillions of apps and still more user-generated content, I don't see
where governments get to think they could possibly micro-manage new rules
for the future without the rest of us at the virtual table. And yes online
procedures should be heavily used. 

An MOU among the parties should be sufficient to get this going, where
perhaps one signatory would be whomever/whatever is the Convention
secrtariat, and the other signature line is blank and ready to be filled in
by whomever. I think public and private parties could all sign it without
terrible difficulty as a very soft law thing.  So if you want to come to
participate in the convention sign the MOU - whoever 'you' are, whether
individual, firm, NGO, or government. Spinning out of the framewok
convention over time I would imagine perhaps new international treay
instruments, new private sector codes of conduct and self-regulatory
agreements, and many things in between.  Over time. 

As to what is binding and non-binding, it was not eg the global climate
change convention itself that was binding, it was the Kyoto protocol
developed there, after it was signed by states.  And yes there are some
obvious flaws in my argument given one nation's insistence on its right to
pollute I mean correct the flaws in the Kyoto Protocol : ). But even so the
model has worked repeatedly over time, just in the case of the Internet the
role of civil society and individual users and yes business too is just too
central to the whole thing to imagine a traditional intergovernmental
process resulting in anything useful.

My as always modest suggestions....

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 10/16/2005 8:56 AM 
>>> >>>

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Vittorio Bertola
Gesendet: So 16.10.2005 14:43
An: Lee McKnight
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight

Lee McKnight 
>I agree that would be dangerous and unacceptable.  A multistakeholder-led
and balanced framework convention on the other hand, would be a whole new
beast.
> 
Vittorio:
How exactly you do envisage such convention to work, from a legal /
formal standpoint? Do you imagine it as a document (a mixture between a
treaty and a contract) signed by governments as well as by the private
sector and civil society? And if all governments can sign it, how could
the "private sector" and "civil society" do so? Do you imagine that all
private companies and all NGOs (and perhaps also individuals) that are
involved with the Internet would sign it as well? Otherwise, how would
you make it binding to stakeholders that did not sign it? (Because I
think that a "convention" is something formally binding, not just an
open declaration of principles.)

Wolfgang

The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and
non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU,
labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997
:-(((.

I am not necessarily against this idea, but I don't see how it could
work in practice.

Thanks,
--

vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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

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

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

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