[governance] Framework convention
Alejandro Pisanty
apisan at servidor.unam.mx
Wed Apr 18 16:44:54 EDT 2007
Lee,
I have one... domain-specific solutions, one by one, with the most
coordination possible among actors that is compatible with achieving
results in each domain. Once you have a few solutions a pattern will have
to emerge, that may tell whether or not a more-comprehensive solution is
in the horizon, and, following function, what form it would take.
None of this has to be exclusively ad-hoc; a connection with reality and a
pragmatic-heuristic approach to solving problems is not in conflict with
agreeing on principles and acting based on them.
Discuss spam, anyone? or what other problem do the members of this list
think they can apply their skills to?
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Lee McKnight wrote:
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:31:43 -0400
> From: Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Framework convention
>
> Bill et al,
>
> ok ; ) my replies to your comments on my comments are below; some text
> deleted to make thread easier to follow
>
>> 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.
>
> Lee: The convention could spawn any number of guideines mou's whatever,
> I don;t see them as mutually exclusive. Just thte fact that you didn;t
> propose one instrument but instead listed a whole variety suggests a
> broader umbrella apprach like the convention could be the right next
> step. You are talking about a Convention with a capital C, for now I'm
> just talking about a self-declared internet framework convention,
> without that formal shape or sanction. Yet. To begin sorting out what
> if anything is needed in the way of formal declarations, treaties,
> resolutions, institutions, etc. And sure industry, civil society groups
> or states shouldn;t wait for the broad discussion if they have specific
> problems and ideas on specific fixes, a la APWG. Or ICANN for that
> matter.
>
>> 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?
>
> Lee: Because this is not (yet) a geographically or institutionally
> bounded set of problems and issues, with a precise and internationally
> agreed consensus on the legitimate set of problem definition(s) for
> international, national, community, private sector and civil society
> action. Yes WGIG & WSIS did their part in beginning to catalog and
> describe the landscape, but we are quite a ways from considering the
> work done, and yeah there are always a raft of new Internet problems.
> Unless you consider the wsis declaration the final word and then I do
> wonder which end is up if we're still talking about this in 2007 - gee I
> thought this was all worked out in Tunisia in 2005? Oops, never mind ;
> )
>
> Also, it's not like at the start of the discussions which led to the
> negotiations for the climate change convention they knew exactly how the
> not -yet existing kyoto protocol would be implemented and how it would
> operate. Except in the US : (. They just knew their was a problem. So
> yes we should look to other areas, and how they have been successful or
> not in dealing with their issues, and match solutions to problems.
>
>> 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.
>
> Lee: And now you want me to promise we WILL reinvent the wheel? I'm
> trying to sneak a multistakeholder from the start process onto the
> international stage and you're blowing my cover. Still, I don't recall
> invoking specific UN institutions nor speculating on when and how they
> might participate. Again, too soon to say. (John probably differs on
> that, we'll see if we can settle our differences in time to have
> something to say as igp by next month.)
>
> And as for precedents from past conventions, remember I am the guy
> saying we don;t have to do this just like the Conventions of the past,
> nor play by the rules of customary international law, alone, so I
> believe we really are in agreement here.
>
>> 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)?
>
> My reply: You think an Internet Framework Convention could even begin
> discussions without non-state actors at the table? I am saying the
> opposite, the conversation has begun, and the states aren't even in the
> virtual room. The UN did make the room reservation for Parminder in
> Athens I guess, but beyond that this doesn;t seem to be a un-driven
> discussion just yes does it?
>
> A future agreement however crafted will need to have room and roles for
> non-state actors, or yeah it is a waste of time.
>
> How can non-state actors change the convention? Probably the question
> becomes a more precise 'in the area of X how do Y actors (can I call
> them stakeholders please?) participate, and who decides what changes may
> be needed in time. That sounds like a key point to address before more
> formal negotiations can begin. The fact that ECOSOC doesn;t allow their
> participation in UN processes may or may not be relevant, depending on
> the specific X in question, and the decisions made running up to an
> eventaul formal convention.
>
>> 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.
>
> Lee's last reply: I don;t recall John or Parminder or I or Wolfgang or
> anyone else claiming a convention could be THE solution, rather we are
> talking about a painfully long and slow process. I can;t say I'm looking
> forward to it. Many on this list have been or are currently
> participating in long, slow, painful Internet governance processes, and
> I sympathize for those objecting just at the thought of starting
> another. If someone has a better/faster idea by all means go right
> ahead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Me: no prob
>
> Lee
>
> 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
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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