[governance] Framework convention
Alejandro Pisanty
apisan at servidor.unam.mx
Fri Apr 20 01:30:24 EDT 2007
Ian,
readers of the WGIG report and documents, and people who have sort of
followed the WSIS and post-WSIS process will of course applaud your
email/posting here, maybe with some bittersweet feelings, as it re-charts
the course of the WGIG!
Welcome to 2003, pals, let's get to do the work on the 17 issues that were
left unsolved. As I asked recently, spam, anyone? Phishing? Any takers for
interconnection costs?
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 Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ian Peter wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:16:20 +1000
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
> "[iso-8859-1] 'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,
> 'Anriette Esterhuysen' <anriette at apc.org>,
> 'William Drake' <drake at hei.unige.ch>,
> 'John Mathiason' <jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Framework convention
>
> I think Wolfgang has the heart of a good model here. Maybe a task for Rio is
> to develop this and present it.
>
> Step one - define the issues that need some form of Internet governance- is
> the current list of 18 issues useful or do we need to extend or refine?
>
> Step two - for each issue define
> * lead stakeholder
> * other major stakeholders ( I think we need to look at UN organizations as
> well as the three major stakeholder groups)
>
> Step three - what does that tell us about which issues might be able to be
> handled by a common organizational structure (eg do spam and phishing have
> nearly identical stakeholder structures or are they sufficiently different
> to suggest different governance models for these two related issues
> (similarly privacy and copyright etc etc)
>
> From this we can make assumptions about models and gap analysis of existing
> organisations.
>
> An interesting exercise!
>
> PS and as an aside - I appreciate that the avenue for Al Quaeda input is
> clearly civil society. I think their Internet governance interests perhaps
> are mainly around issues such as censorship and freedom of expression.
> (another issue grouping that needs its own structure perhaps). The middle
> east is becoming a perfect example of a problem that cannot be solved by
> governments alone without the involvement in a solution of non-government
> players (aka civil society) and business interests. All three groupings have
> interested intertwined in the current quagmire and attempts to arrive at
> solutions without involving all three are clearly unworkable. We could
> rapidly develop a list of a number of current issues where resolution is
> dependent on interaction of major groupings outside government - in my
> immediate areas of interest climate change and internet governance are clear
> examples where any one group not working in co-operation with the other two
> major groupings isnt going to make much headway.
>
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: 19 April 2007 17:57
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason
> Subject: AW: [governance] Framework convention
>
> Dear list,
>
>
> One of the challenges is to figure out how the relationship (in legal and
> political terms) among the stakeholders can be organized (and formalized),
> probably on a case by case basis. In a paper for WGIG (Internet
> Co-Governance) I proposed a model, where you have basically a trilateral
> mechanism for each of the IG issues (as listed in the WGIG report), but for
> each issues the triangel would be different. Governmental leadership would
> be needed in the fight against cybercrime, but also here the involvment of
> private sector and civil society is needed. On the other hand, the
> management of the DNS should by led by the private sector (but also here a
> certain involvment of governments and civil society is needed). In WGIG we
> listed 18 relevant IG issues, which would mean 18 different governance
> models, based on multistakeholderism, that is of a specific triangular
> relationship. With other words, we would have 18 different triangels. I have
> called this IG model the "Tower of Triangels". But again, when we accept,
> that we are moving towards a system change, then we have to go beyond
> refering to existing (legal and political) instruments and have to invent
> something which is new. BTW, the majority of todays war are not among
> sovereign states. Al Kaida is not a sovereign nationstate, it is a network
> :-((((.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
> Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 23:40
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake; John Mathiason
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Framework convention
>
>
>
> 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 <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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007
> 16:22
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007
> 16:22
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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