[governance] Framework convention
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Wed Apr 18 17:40:10 EDT 2007
Keep in mind what has been achieved with the
UN Economic Commission for Europe's Aarhus
Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters.
It secure rights to participation and access
information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention
I.o.w. the modalities for participation of non-
state actors in the 'implementation' of a
framework convention (or any other multi-
lateral agreement) could theoretically be
determined by a linked convention established
specifically for that purpose. And, it can
address some of the concerns that has been
raised.
Anriette
> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date:
> 4/17/2007 5:20 PM
>
------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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