AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
Lee McKnight
LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Wed Apr 18 11:26:54 EDT 2007
Bill, Wolfgang,
As John notes it's hard at end of semester to keep up with this list,
sorry for fading in and out of the dialog.
I also did a short paper adapting from John's on my views on the
framework convention also a couple years back for an OII meeting, but I
admit that was also very sketchy. I'll dig that out though and John and
I can argue some on what we IGPers mean and get something put together
by the time John suggests, for the rest of you to throw stones at.
For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet
framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet Framework
Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam have
cited. Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the other
hand eg i would imagine a greater emphasis on coordinating remote
participation given the Internet crowd.
Yeah in the end there might be the framework of frameworks signed only
by States,and translated to domestic legislation but under and around
that umbrella a pile of private and public agreements and commitments
may be made, and revised over time, also by non-state actors, ie
business, civil society, and individuals. Without ICANN, APWG, etc
etc, then the framework is pretty empty. As Bertrand notes, the GAC is
putting forth basic 'good governance' notions to frame its own
activities, that is certainly to be preferred to alternatives. So it's
not like the framework precludes the need for various groups to do what
they are doing, as well as they can. It may however help
institutionalize other Internet governance processes, to the degree
there is interest and a ratioanle for doing so.
And as for Rio, I guess as Vittorio and Jacqueline agree, there's
nothing stopping a discussion on ICANN there; who participates, and the
agenda, and the eventual ICANN response to any recommendations emanating
from the discussion, will determine its ultimate utility, or lack
thereof. A discussion on the framework convention would also merit
another workshop I'd think. Maybe Parminder and John can coorganize
that.
Neither of which is to take anything away from work on access and many
other critical issues, at IGF, ICANN, or beyond, which IGP also looks
forward to contributing to the degree we are able.
Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/18/2007 9:44 AM
>>>
John,
can you explain me exactly who would negotiate and who would sign the
"Framework Convention" or however you title such a documented
arrangement?
Would it be a convention under the Vienna Law of Treaty Convention?
Would it go through a national ratification procedure? How
non-governmental actors would be included into negotiations? How these
non-governmental actors, if they would be included, would join such a
convention? Just by signing? What about accountability?
Content of a FC is important, but here the formalities are even more
important.
Best wishes
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: John Mathiason [mailto:jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu]
Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 15:39
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; DRAKE William
Betreff: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf
Bill,
Any Framework Convention on Internet Governance would have to cover
all of the major policy areas that need some agreement in order to
ensure the orderly development of the Internet and clearly would have
to go beyond core resources, but the core resources would have to be
dealt with as a key issue. The scope of an FC would be subject to
negotiation but, to anticipate one of the criteria to apply, should
deal with issues where existing regimes overlap or conflict.
Best,
John
On Apr 18, 2007, at 9:26, DRAKE William wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Great, look forward to it, it will be helpful to the discussion.
> In the meanwhile, maybe you could help me and Mawaki out here and
> indicate whether this would be intended to address just the
> governance of core resources, or IG more generally?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
> John Mathiason wrote:
>> Bill,
>> An interesting challenge, which deserves to be taken up. There
>> are now enough ideas out there to try to put together a more
>> complete analysis of what a Framework Convention on Internet
>> Governance might look like. In addition to the Climate Change
>> Convention (UNFCCC), we now have the WHO Tobacco convention
>> (http://www.who.int/tobacco/ framework/en/) which is a framework
>> convention in that it specifies principles (tobacco is bad) and
>> norms (public policy should address demand) but leaves many of
>> the details to further negotiation. Both provide interesting
>> precedents on which to draw. It being the end-of- semester in the
>> groves of academia, the revised paper may take a couple of weeks,
>> but we (IGP) will plan to have it ready before the next IGF
>> consultations on 23 May.
>> Best,
>> John
>> On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:48, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi Mawaki,
>>>
>>> On 4/18/07 5:36 AM, "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, I was bit confused when I read Bill's message below; it
>>>> sounds as if an FC (or let call it an "international agrement"
>>>> of some sort though "international" sounds more modern than
>>>> postmoder ;)) was intended to take care of all things IG. To my
>>>> understanding, this is intended to define and give a legal basis
>>>> to the norms and rules, the mechanisms and processes, in sum,
>>>> the legitimate authority to deal with relevant public policy
>>>> issues pertaining to the others numerous issues of IG. And so
>>>> far, there is no assumption on the nature or form of such
>>>> authority, except that most of us seems to agree that it
>>>> shouldn't be another intergovernmental kind of org. That could
>>>> as well be a concentrated, scalable, multi-level structure where
>>>> governments may get to make final decisions (again, only on
>>>> public policy) but not without accepting external inputs
>>>> (technical community, academia, CS, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Your understanding seems a lot more narrowly focused than what
>>> John proposed
>>> in his paper three years ago, which to my knowledge is IGP's
>>> only written
>>> statement on the matter. And that was just a four page concept
>>> paper, more
>>> of a teaser than an elaborated proposal. Absent further
>>> specification, it's
>>> natural that people will differently imagine what it is intended
>>> to entail,
>>> and differently react to the recurrent suggestion that it could
>>> be The
>>> Solution. That's why I suggested yesterday to Milton that you
>>> guys take the
>>> next step and spell it out. Otherwise we'll just go around and
>>> around
>>> talking past each other.
>>>
>>> On your formulation, much of IG broadly defined already has
>>> clear legal
>>> bases to its norms and rules, and it's not obvious how a FC
>>> would relate to
>>> and further clarify the disparate bits of national and
>>> international law
>>> underlying the shared rule systems pertaining to IPR, e-commerce
>>> and trade,
>>> security, consumer protection, and so on. I'm guessing that you
>>> actually
>>> mean IG as popularly defined pre-WSIS, i.e. just core resources,
>>> and that
>>> this is why you found my comment confusing. There are legal
>>> bases there too
>>> but to the extent they're unclear or problematic I guess the
>>> idea is to
>>> change them. Fine, but then maybe you should call it an FC on the
>>> governance of core resources to avoid further misunderstanding.
>>> And spell
>>> out what it might look like so people have something concrete to
>>> react to,
>>> rather than trying to imagine what you all have in mind.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list