[governance] Framework convention

[Mawaki Chango]

Sorry, I meant below:
3. it may include 1 to 3 seats (but same number) geographically
distributed *per region* for governments...


--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> I’m running behind, but before I stop running altogether, I
> just
> wanted to clarify here some aspects of Bill's earlier
> questions.
> First, I was not part of the IGP team that produced the paper
> on
> the FC and my views are personal, though I read the paper and
> my
> understanding of what that FC might be has been helped by
> repeated clarifications provided here by some members of the
> IGP
> team such as Milton.
> 
> That being said, your assumption or hunch that the embodiment
> of
> the outcome of an FC (or let me switch to m.a., multilateral
> agreement, as a more generic term) is a reasonable, even
> logic,
> one. That is because I envision that body as replacing the GAC
> and what the GAC was intended (or is now inclined) to do
> within
> ICANN. So, as far as ICANN purports to deal only with the core
> resources of the Internet, that tentative conclusion you drew
> is
> indeed sensible. But I have to admit that in the process of
> negotiating an agreement, those functions of the current GAC,
> and of the future internet global public policy body (p.p.b.),
> may be subject to redefinition.
> 
> People don't seem to realize that as it stands, the GAC is a
> private club, a component of another private entity. Here is
> an
> example to illustrate what I'm talking about. In the wake of
> the
> vote taken by the GNSO council about the definition of the
> purpose of the WHOIS database in April 2006, the GAC delegate
> from Australia sent a letter arguing against the result of the
> vote on bases that clearly contradicted the law and
> regulations
> regarding individuals' privacy as in effect in her country.
> NCUC
> sent a letter via the GNSO to point that out and ask the
> delegate for an explanation; a response never came. In my
> view,
> that was not an incident, but a structural consequence of what
> the GAC is. This wouldn't easily happen in the UN where they
> have a clear international legal basis, and clear mission and
> mandate from their governments, etc. (even if many governments
> contravene the law in domestic affairs, they wouldn't go up to
> making unlawful statements outside; in any case, that's
> certainly not the kind of behavior we would want to advocate.)
> So do we realize that with a GAC like this, we are worse off
> than the UN that many of us enjoy criticizing?!! The
> difference
> is, they are governed by a legal framework in the UN, but not
> in
> the ICANN/GAC.
> 
> Therefore, I see an m.a. as instrumental to define the rules,
> process and procedures in order to cure such failings. And
> here,
> as John and Kicki mentioned, we have a great example with the
> Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the
> antecedent of the WSIS itself, to make sure CS weigh in and
> has
> an imprint on the discussions/negotiations outcome.
> 
> Now, when talking previously about the FC I wrote that it
> should
> provide us with:
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> I envisioned something I’d like to illustrate with the
> following
> features (please note, this is just tossing ideas around  as
> food for thought.): 
> 
> 1. it will NOT be a universal international organization with
> about 200 member states.
> 
> 2. an administrative procedure directive/resolution, etc. must
> clearly lay down the roles and responsibilities of the
> structure, its scope (public policy matters where it is
> beneficial for us to have a global decision, the principles
> and
> conditions for subsidiarity, etc.), the mechanisms for appeal
> and for final decision making. no member has a veto. [subject
> to
> international legal advice, this may entirely be part of the
> convention itself, or elaborated later on based on the basic
> principles laid down by the convention.] 
> 
> 3. it may include 1 to 3 seats (but same number) for
> governments
> geographically distributed (according to established regional
> division so that countries that have some habit of working
> together or identifying their interests/problems as close to
> one
> another's, etc. may feel represented and work together.)
> 
> 4. the government seats may rotate from countries within the
> same cluster/region with a term duration to be specified. The
> eligible governments must first volunteer to occupy a seat on
> the internet p.p.b.
> 
> 5. relevant international organizations (un, itu, wipo,
> unesco,
> wto? etc.) and the chair of the future icann board of
> directors
> may each have a seat.
> 
> 6. other members may include Internet/IT-related legal,
> academic
> and technical experts and other personalities of relevance
> from
> what you may call the internet community or the CS. the number
> of these seats is fixed and constrained by the size of the
> structure which must be kept as concentrated as possible.
> vacancies will be publicly advertised, and the p.p.b. will
> receive nominations (made by anyone, including individuals and
> governments) and candidacies/self-nominations. candidates will
> be invited to provide the same types of materials that will be
> reviewed by the body, and finalists invited for
> interviews/hearings. final decisions and appointments are made
> by the structure’s government body as a whole, or by the
> chair,
> for a limited term (to be specified.) Geographic distribution
> may be desirable, but not a requirement; the overarching
> criterion must be based on how much resourceful the candidates
> will be for the work of the p.p.b. 
> 
> 7. in case there is a serious issue from some governments to
> be
> seated with non-governmental actors in making decisions, the
> aforementioned non-governmental actors may form a separate
> sort
> of technical advisory committee (t.a.c.) that will be fully
> part
> of the structure (multi-level.) 
> 
> 8. the t.a.c. (in case created) can produce at its own
> discretion papers, materials, etc. that the government body
> will
> have to consider while examining related issues. contributions
> can be requested from outside.
> 
> 9. any individual or organization can seize the governmental
> body on any internet public policy issues. the government body
> can examine the issues before them if they deem to be
> competent,
> or refer the issues to existing bodies that are deemed (more)
> competent to address them. Alternatively, advice can be sought
> from existing governance, Internet, and international
> organizations, as well as from existing national (e.g., the
> US’s
> FCC, the South African ICASA, the Singaporean, etc.) or
> regional
> (e.g., WATRO from West Africa, etc.) regulators.
> 
> 10. the future icann bodies such as the current gnso council
> may
> continue de develop narrow focus policies relevant to the
> organization business. these policies may be adopted/voted by
> the future icann board in order to give it the imprint of the
> organization before, if relevant (if determination is made
> that
> public policy, industry regulation, etc. issues are involved)
> those policies must then be reviewed and approved/validated by
> the p.p.b. before they enter into effect.
> 
> Ok guys, not that I want to run away from you throwing the
> stones, but I have to inform you that I need to get back to my
> end-of-semester assignments, lest I shall endure the wrath of
> my
> teachers and mentor. Can’t resolve to be castigated on both
> ends.
> Cheers,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> --- William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> 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
> 

____________________________________________________________
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