[governance] Framework convention
John Mathiason
jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu
Wed Apr 18 16:20:58 EDT 2007
Bill,
I'll retain a copy of your notes and try to answer some of your
comments in the paper. I know that for inexplicable reasons we are
on different sides regarding the Framework Convention idea (we
clearly did not agree in Athens) and I will try to convince you with
the power of argumentation and, even, facts in the paper.
Just to clarify one small point: a Convention is a treaty (it is a
multilateral treaty as defined in the Vienna Convention -- see -- on
the Law of Treaties). The other things you mention (declarations,
resolutions, recommendations, guidelines, informal agreements) are
probably morally binding on those that agree to them, but as might be
said -- paraphrasing an old lawyer's maxim: "a moral agreement is
worth the convention it is written in."
We'll have fun continuing our discussion of this.
Best,
John
On Apr 18, 2007, at 14:56, William Drake wrote:
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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