[governance] Framework convention

[William Drake]

Hi Lee,

There are about twenty different conversations now running under the
heading, "Re: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf."  If we could please
separate this thread from the interpersonal pissing matches etc. that'd be
helpful, I've accidentally deleted some bits and had to go find them in the
list archive.

On 4/18/07 5:26 PM, "Lee McKnight" <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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.

You're not alone
 
> 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.

Sounds good.  But I have an antecedent question.  Why are we talking about a
Convention per se?  Why fix on this particular institutional form, rather
than say a standard treaty, a Declaration, a Resolution, a Recommendation,
Guidelines, an MOU, a multistakeholder informal agreement, or something
else?  I can't help wondering if the basic rationale isn't, 'because the UN
has done conventions in other, unrelated fields, let's have one here too,'
which to me wouldn't be a compelling answer.   Normally one would think form
should follow function, but it seems like you guys are saying first we
should agree there needs to be a Convention and then secondly we'll figure
out what it's for, which seems odd.
 
> For now let's just say the rules objectives etc for an Internet
> framework convention are yet to be defined, and an Internet Framework

Right.  I really don't mean this in a nasty way, but please tell me why this
isn't ass backwards.  Why not work from a precise problem definition =>
bounded range of institutional options, pros and cons of each => the
selection of a solution?

> Convention could be more or less like the precedents John & Adam have
> cited.  Anything to avoid reinventing wheels makes sense, on the other

Uh, that's how the ITU has made decisions for over a century.  They didn't
invent something new when the telephone came along, they grafted language
onto telegraph arrangements.  The international standardization and
diffusion of telephony was slowed in consequence.  Ditto datacommunications.
Institutionally embedded history's not always the best guide within much
less across global policy domains.

> 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

How would non-state actors revise a Convention done under the UN (meaning
ECOSOC, which doesn't allow their participation)?

> 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.

Sure
 
> 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.

Sure, sure
 
> 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.

Ok.  Hope you all understand, I'm not being hostile, I'm just puzzled by the
reasoning, and in consequence by the frequent invocations of the solution.

Thanks,

Bill

> 
>>>> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
***********************************************************



____________________________________________________________
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