AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Ian:

Maybe we need to define a multistakeholder model? To me it is something like a model which involves all parties appropriately utilising their various strengths to achieve outcomes ....

Wolfgang. 
 
Yes there is need for a MS definition. The bizarr discussions during the recent ECOSOC/CSTD meeting in Geneva on WSIS Follow up have shown, that although the MS principle as such was accepted by the heads of states already in WSIS I (Geneva, December 2003) and strongly reconfirmed by WSIS II (Tunis, November 2005) and is seen in particular as a basic principle for Internet Govnernace, there is no agreement what "full involvement of all stakeholders" means in practice. 
 
The WGIG report has a section whre it tries to define the "specific roles and responsibilities" if the three main stakeholder groups (there are also others) but it didn´t say anything on how the three goups should interact in practice. Ian is right if he is arguing that the three stakeholder groups have different functions and that it would be stupid to introduce a fixed mechanism (governments in RIRs and CS/PS oversight) in which everyhwere and everytime all stakeholder groups have to be included on equal footing. 
 
My understanding is that Multistakeholderism (a form of a flexible triangular relationship based on the specific strengths and opportunities by the involved parties with regard to specific issues) is the basic principle, but the concrete design of the "triangle" depends  from the given issue. While some areas like IP number allocation or DNS management can be done under private sector leadership (with limited governmental involvement if it comes to ccTLDs etc.) fighting cybercrime or protecting human rights governmental leadership is needed (but needs also a rational involvement of private sector and civil society, partly as watchdog). 
 
With other words, in the 21st century diplomacy you will have "governance triangles" everywhere, but each triangle is different, according to the specific substance of the issue. Such an approach allows also a bottom up policy development process, that is you can involve all stakeholdes in the buPDP via public calls for proposals etc. Bbut if it comes to decision making,  the specifcs of the issue will determine what the best way is. Sometimes you need legally binding agreements (and then you need governments), sometimes an informal arrangement or "rough consensus" by involved parties is enough. And then no govenrment is needed. The result is - as I have it described in another paper - that Internet Governance as a multilayer multiplayer mechanism constitutes something like a "tower of triangles" with no single model. Look forward and be innovative.
 
Best
 
w
 
____________________________________________________________
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