[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> It is also about shaping opinions.  It can thus narrow areas of 
>> difference to be resolved through other mechanisms of governance (such 
>> as rules, norms, markets, or architecture).
> 
> I'm having some trouble appreciating what you are saying; and I sense 
> that we may have a fundamentally different view of what this thing 
> "internet governance" is.
...snip...
> To my mind, only those techo-internet matters that require, and I mean 
> really require, a unified, singular body to make binding decisions, are 
> matters that require a layer of internet governance.

Then yes, we do have a fundamentally different view of Internet 
governance.  Recall that the WGIG defined Internet governance as "the 
development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil 
society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, 
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and 
use of the Internet."

This is a much broader conception of Internet governance than that of a 
unified, singular body making binding decisions.  It is actually loosely 
derived from the accepted definition of a "regime" in international 
relations theory, which is broad enough to encompass all manner of 
public and private, hard and soft arrangements that shape the behaviour 
and expectations of actors in a given issue area.

> In other words, to me, the term "internet governance" ought to be 
> reserved for those internet techno things that really and truly require 
> one choice that binds everyone.

I see this as one of three spheres of Internet governance, that I refer 
to as "technical coordination", though there is no universally accepted 
term for it.  The other two spheres I refer to as "standards 
development" and "public policy governance".  Again, terminology varies, 
but I do think that your definition of "Internet governance" is nowadays 
unusually narrow.

> I  sense that
> you are considering governance in a broader way that isn't necessarily 
> coercive and admits of private choice that is contrary to the decision 
> of the governance body.

Sure.

> If we drop the qualifier "internet" from "internet governance" then, I 
> submit, we've entered a whole new ball game.  Once we start dealing with 
> matters that go beyond the technical necessities of the net, then we are 
> engaging in World Governance with a big 'W' and a big 'G'.  Much as I 
> think we want to improve the world, I'm not particularly optimistic 
> about the chances of success if we enter that arena.

You mean, matters like openness, security, access and diversity?

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
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