[governance] Framework convention
William Drake
drake at hei.unige.ch
Thu Apr 19 02:56:03 EDT 2007
Hi,
John, right, a Convention is a treaty. But a great many treaties are not
called Conventions, hence the separate mention. The International
Telecommunication Regulations, for example, which are due to be reviewed and
possibly revised at a big diplomatic conference in 2012, to take into
account the Internet and related developments (e.g. NGN). Remind me again
of the time frame on the FC concept? ;-)
Lee, thanks for the detailed reply, which was helpful. Look forward to
seeing what you folks come up with.
Cheers,
Bill
On 4/18/07 10:20 PM, "John Mathiason" <jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
***********************************************************
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list