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

Thu Aug 3 18:31:16 EDT 2006

Lee,

A personal analysis of the US government attitude in the WSIS process
regarding those issues. There certainly are other elements at play, of
course, and I have no isnsider information :-).

I suppose there was a strategic decision from the US government NOT to have
anything substantial decided on ICANN or Internet Governance through the
WSIS process itself because it remained - in spite of some improvements -
fundamentally a UN process. This would have set a precedent for other
issues. We might not like it because it slowed down the process, but it is
understandable in a broader picture.

Now that this process is over in its pure UN format, there can be some
loosening of positions, such as a move on ICANN, if less on IANA. Hence the
importance of the IGF space as a more neutral and multi-stakeholder
environment to explore a better architecture. There is a window of
opportunity here for ALL actors, including governments, to fully take
advantage of.

The key challenge now is to design something innovative that is in line with
what the US government has repeatedly advocated through the successive MoUs
and organizes a peaceful transition to a more international framework.

In discussing these issues, the IGF has no decision-making capacity but it
has, potentially, a real decision-shaping capacity,precisely because of its
flexible format and composition.

I always like to remind people of the exchange between ambassador Khan and
Valerie d'Costa in the last days of the extended PrepCom3 in Tunis : the
debate is not between those who want change and those who do not; it is
about the scope and speed of the evolution.

Best

Bertrand

On 8/3/06, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060804/e8f7228f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060804/e8f7228f/attachment.txt>