[governance] Framework convention
John Mathiason
jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu
Thu Apr 19 07:35:15 EDT 2007
Bill,
I am enjoying the discussion and have noted Wolfgang and Ian Peter's
comments, as well as Lee's. The gist of many of the comments is that
Internet governance should not be limited by existing forms of
reaching international agreements and that new models should be
sought. I sense that you have a similar concern. I think that under
the heading "multistakeholderism" this is something that many in
civil society would like to see. Very visionary in the longer-term,
but not very realistic in the short term, since it would really
require an abolition of the Westphalian model. The likely way in
which the role of non-State actors will be played out in the shorter-
term will be in the negotiation process and in holding States
accountable once they have agreed. Kicki Nordstrom has pointed out
rather eloquently (and she knows the process well from the Disability
Convention negotiations) that civil society and other non-State
actors are very influential in negotiations, particularly where the
issue is one in which responsibilities are shared by State and non-
State actors. She also notes the Landmine Convention (which is
actually not a UN Convention) that was adopted by States under great
pressure by NGOs.
Your point on the ITU Regulations raises a different question. This
is whether the Internet should be governed through one of the
technical conventions. If the right one could be found, this would
be a solution and clearly the ITU would not object to making the 2012
revision the focus. Here the problem is that as currently being
debated, the issues of Internet governance extend well beyond ITU's
remit and that focussing international agreement on the ITU would
either take too narrow a position (e.g issues of content and freedom
of expression would be left out) or the ITU would be given a
dramatically enlarged mandate.
I agree that many of the non-universal conventions (like the Council
of Europe's Cybercrime Convention or the ECE's Aarhus Convention on
Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and
Access to Justice
in Environmental Matters) contain interesting agreements. But, since
the Internet is universal, a non-universal convention will not be
binding. I would look at these as examples of what can be agreed,
but not as models.
The existence of both technical conventions and non-universal
conventions is probably another incentive to negotiate a universal
umbrella agreement that provides a holistic framework into which they
can be placed.
As to how long a Framework Convention would take (the time horizon),
there is clearly no hard and fast rule. The Climate Change
Convention, if you take as its genesis the World Climate Programme,
took about 10 years. The Disability Convention, in contrast, took
about five. It depends on the urgency of the problems being
addressed, the concern of the stakeholders and the perceived benefits
of agreeing on something to preserve order.
All of the inputs into the discussion, I must say, are well-
considered and when we draft the revised paper, will be addressed.
Best,
John
On Apr 19, 2007, at 2:56, William Drake wrote:
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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