[governance] Where are we going?

[Luc Faubert]

Good question Wolfgang.

I think the Internet and its users would benefit from a framework enabling global policy to be determined. Lots of people have intuited this solution in the last years. I've discussed the idea of such a framework with some of you at WSIS events and in Athens more recently, as well as on ISOC's public policy list.

Here is an outline of one variation on the concept (with thanks to those who have provided suggestions in the last months):


The Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF -- or whatever it's called), a global Internet policy building mechanism


Context

Activity in the Internet governance field has dramatically increased with the growing importance of the Internet for humans, along with WSIS events and their offspring, the Internet Governance Forum. These events have made it clear to many that solutions to Internet-related challenges have to span state boundaries for them to be effective. No national policy or laws alone can hope to solve problems faced by Internet users relating to spam, cyberlaw or privacy for example.

Furthermore, no existing institution seems likely to have the capacity to eventually become an accepted clearinghouse for Internet-related policy.

I propose the creation of an Internet Policy Task Force as a solution to this challenge.


The Internet Policy Task Force

The IPTF could be defined as a set of processes and tools which, given they are eventually recognized as worthwhile by the international community interested in Internet governance-related policy, could emerge as the de facto mechanism used by groups of people seeking to collaborate in order to draft concrete policy texts.

The IPTF would be loosely based on the IETF's structure and processes, adapted to suit the needs of the policy-building process. Participation in working groups tackling discreet policies would be open to all, as are IETF's working groups. Output of the IPTF would be non-binding, although it could eventually exert some authority on countries and institutions due to the legitimacy and wide acceptance of its policy-building processes.


Challenges

 - building a process and tools that are elegant, simple, scalable and that work well,
 - building support and momentum for the concept,
 - finding good leaders,
 - engaging participation by all stakeholders including governments,
 - dealing with multilinguism,
 - have small successes early on,
 - breaking the policy issues down in manageable chunks,
 - working online with many participants.


Next steps

Step 1. Bring together a working group of people interested in defining the IPTF's processes and tools in order to build a proof of concept.

Step 2. Test the proof of concept in the next months, possibly within one of the dynamic coalitions that came out of the Athens IGF.

Step 3. If the test is successful, propose the IPTF mechanism at the Rio IGF in November 2007.


-  Luc Faubert
   ISOC Québec

_________________________________________
Luc Faubert
Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement /
IT governance and change management consulting 
+1 514 236 5129
www.LucFaubert.com
www.LucFaubert.com/blog
www.isoc.qc.ca
www.ccig.ca
www.maillons.qc.ca 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
> Sent: 9 avril 2007 09:52
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
> School of Law; Raul Echeberria
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] Where are we going?
> 
> My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a 
> missing link in the mechanism of involved institutions and 
> organisations. We all agree that ICANN should not go beyond 
> its narrow defined technical mandate. A lot of us agree also 
> that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the final 
> decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the 
> process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to 
> make such a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new 
> multistakeholder body for cases like this which gets for very 
> narrow defined cases a final decision making mandate. This 
> could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working Group or something new. Any ideas?
>  
> Wolfgang
> 
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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