[governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root

[Lee McKnight]

Bertrand,

Thanks, an excellent post. Really a start on an outline of a draft
agenda for a framework convention to consider. Definitely yours are
among the core questions on the table, and it does help a lot if we can
all try to be as precise in separating out the various Internet
governance issues on the table. Of course there are still more.  I'm
pressed for time so won;t respond point by point right now, will return
to this soon. Back mainly to the realpolitik around ICANN's HQ location:


- yes obviously it says something in fact quite a lot that the HQ is in
California, it's a non-profit under us & california law, and oh yeah
there's a more or less benevolent(?) big brother in DC that keeps
pulling their - and the whole world's - chain now and then. 

- yes moving HQ's is a big deal and would engender global competition
to host, totally normal and quite reasonable. A distributed host model
makes sense as ICANN seems to get, given the global reach of the
Internet and its various regional impacts. And it means something
institutionally if a body is established enough to set off that kind of
scramble. So the Internet's grown up, even if ICANN isn't, and we should
all be proud : )

- But and back to the Realpolitik, ICANN as an institution might be
happy to relocate to say the Caymans to get away from Big Brother, and
be less accountable to us all (no slur, just a compliment to their
support of unfettered enterprise ; ); so a move in that sense is
plausible.

- However, we forgot about big brother. Pre-framework convention it
doesn;t really feel like the Internet's all that grown-up does it. So I
suspect Big Brother is not going away altogether, but may loosen the
leash(es) or let others get their hands on some of them too somehow. To
keep with the analogy. So while internationalization of oversight is de
facto and de jure happening, the question is how far and what precisely
are the next steps for each of the actors and institutions in play. Some
you outlined in your note.  The objective and need of a truer
globalization though is obvious, since the numbers don't lie - there's
way more Internet users outside the US than inside, and globalization
without representation feels unfair. And yes it is also critically
important that civil society and the tech communtiy don't let
governements accidentally choke us to death.

 In sum: if the rest of the world and the USG haven;t agreed on what
the answers are to your 6 questions, or even that those are the
questions to be answered, then they're not letting go. And yes once you
have the HQ it is hard to get it out of there even if a treaty says it
has to go. That's realpolitik for you. But Bonn lost to Berlin, so
change happens. And the technology is incredibly squishy so the USG
could end up controlling nothing by trying too hard to control too much.
 Or too long.

- So that leaves us with the IGF and the need to contiinue the
discussion around these issues and prep for a a Framework Convention ss
you have suggested.

- And sure, amongst the issues on the table will be the next hq's of
ICANN, as well as the locations of any other new Internet institutions
spawned, whether for root management or policy setting or whatever.  

Finally, I like Wolfgang's 'watchdog' role for IGF vis a vis ICANN, but
really it is a broader mandate , since the IGF's role must encompass
providing for multistakeholder review and examination of all other
relevant institutions and their (in-)actions, ie ITU, WIPO etc. 

Lee 

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

>>> "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> 8/2/2006 6:30
AM >>>
Dear Lee,

The point I was raising is not the location per se but the nature of
the
entity : there is no way today to create a truly international
structure,
either for profit or non-profit. And it would make sense to have a
global
structure to handle such a global network.

To avoid confusion, let's distinguish clearly betwen the different
layers of
issues we are addressing in this important thread :

1) the regimes that should be applied to gTLDs and ccTLDs :
similarities and
differences

2) benefits and drawbacks of one root vs several interoperable ones
(cf. Joe
Baptista) ?

3) should the same entity(ies) handle both root management and general
policy setting ?

4) the nature of institutions in charge of the respective functions :
national NGO status with host country agreement, intergovernmental
organization, a new, truly international and multi-stakeholder format,
other
... ?

5) the origins of legitimacy for the said organization(s) (ie : how
they are
created) : MoU with one or several governments, international Treaty,
framework convention, self-established multi-stakeholder Charter  ?

6) the physical location of the offices of these entities : single
location
or geographic distribution in multiple regions ? hosting by various
entities
(as the W3C) or in their own premisses ?

As for the physical location, Avri is of course right : it should be
only the governance regime/framework that matters, not the location.
Still,
the present situation combines : a legitimacy coming from a MoU with a
single government, a legal structure following the laws of a single
country
and, for a long time, a location in a single country. The symbolic
dimension
cannot be eluded.

Establishing a more distributed international presence (as ICANN
initiated
recently with Europe), getting some sort of host country agreement,
and
establishing a new charter/framework among more actors than one
government
alone are probably elements to consider in moving forward.

This of course does not reduce the pertinence of Milton's remark
regarding
accountability : how to guarantee accountability, enforceability and
possibility of appeal at the international level ?

As you mentionned in a separate post, ime may not be ripe yet to revive
the
notion of a framework convention, but it would eventually be an
appropriate
way to discuss those interlinked issues together.

Best.

Bertrand de La Chapelle


P.S. : as for the IMF and World Bank location in DC, you probably know,
Lee,
that the rule is that the headquarters of these institutions are
located -
per Charter - in the country that is the largest shareholder (in this
case
the US). But, knowing that the shares of all european countries
combined represent more than the US, some actors have suggested in the
past
that the european union should pool its seats and ask for the two
institutions to move their headquarters to Europe. It is not likely to
happen for many reasons, as we all know, but the physical location of
any
international organization is clearly not neutral.








On 8/1/06, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of
course
> the World Bank & IMF depart DC.
>
> There, we've solved the world's problems ; (
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> mueller at syr.edu 8/1/2006 10:07 AM >>>
>
> Canada?
>
> >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS,
is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small
and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France,
seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples
(and
> they have good Internet connectivity).
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance