AW: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN

Fri Feb 8 02:16:02 EST 2008

Avri:
Before I get criticized for not offering anything other then disagreement,  for information sake, i tend to favor a  model that 
includes an independent appeals mechanism, and some form of the no confidence vote model.

Wolfgang:

I fully agree with Avri. Following the debate it seems to me that one reason for the misunderstandings is that we have still a very weak conceptual theoretical framework for the "bottom up policy development principle".We do not yet really understand what "bottom up" means contrasted with the century old "top down" policy principle. 

Bottom up was one of the main arguments of CS in WSIS.  This was part of the discussion within CS (reflected in the endless debates about the role of the Plenary, Content&Themes and the CS Bureau) but it was also part of the bigger picture with regard to the relationship between the three stakeholders, in particular between CS and government. 

The principle of multistakeholderism emerged from this discussion. At least it was recognized as an undefined concept in the WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles in 2003 and constituted the basis for the formation of WGIG as a compromise between the controversial concepts of "governmental leadership" vs. "private sector leadership" in Internet Governance by the heads of states and governments. It includes certainly the bottom up policy development principle as one key element, even if this was not stated so expressis verbis. 

My understanding of "bottom up" is that there is no sub-ordination, there is no "master on the top" who tells, oversees, controls etc. It is a qualitative new relationship among different groups who has to sit togetbner and to figure out both within their own groups and among themselves how to manage concrete problems on an issue by issue basis. The traditional "triangel" where we had governments on the top, private sector was lobbying (or buying) governments and civil society was protesting in the streets (peacefully or with violence) became reconstructuted from a hierarchical model into a network model where nobody is on the top but everybody is linked to everyboday (and has a responsibility, accountability) to everybody but not in a way to be "overseen" or "controlled" but in a self-disciplined self-governed  take and give which is in the own interest of each party and not the result of a power relationship. 

Important: The WGIG report added that the stakeholders are acting together in "their specific roles and responsibilities". They are working on the same issue but have different interests, doing different things and have different responsibilities. But nobody can settle the issues alone without taking the other stakeholders on board. It is not only that everybody should work together with everybody, the dilemma (or better the good thing) is, that everybody neeeds everybody and must work together, otherwise the whole process fails. 

During the Meissen Symposium last year we discussed at length the concept of "enhanced cooperation" and discovered two totally different models: 

The top down enhanced cooperation model (initiated by the EU and supported by a number of governments) is an inter-govenmental negotiation mechanism which creates a politcal and/or legal framework in which then others actors - not included in the final decison making - has to act. Madame Reding used in Athens the picture of the "concentric cirlces" with the governments in the center and the IGF at the periphery (eyebrorws among a lot of participants and she did not repeat this in Rio).

The other model ist the bottom up enhanced cooperation model. It has a number of components, starting with "enhanced communication" among intersted stakeholders, moving deeper (if needed) to enhanced coordination and leading (again if needed) to informal or formal enhanced cooperation bilatrally or multilatrally, according to the special needs of the substance of a concrete issue at stake.

I undestand (and agree) that one counterargument is: You are a dreamer. You do not understand the world where power politics dominates, where somebody has to give an order and others have to say "Yes Sir".  However, both in the process of the making of ICANN and the WSIS process a lot of these new ideas were flying around and they got some first mechanisms for a global experiment both within ICANN (regardless of the many drawbacks) and now, on a higher level with the IGF. 

With other words, putting the IGF into the role of an oversight body would put the original innovative and radical democratic concept from the feets to the head. And it would destroy the IGF if the IGF would take over such a role. In contrary, the IGF is an ideal (neutral but very political) ) platform where interested partners can kick start processes of enhanced communication, enhanced coordination and enhanced cooperation (EC³) on various issues on a voluntary basis, driven by their own interest and pushed forward by the pressure of the involved and affectd stakeholder groups. Here we can move with bottom up from theory to practice. But, ujnfortunately theory is still weak, so we need more practical generated knowledge how this will work.  Obviously it will work only if it is done not in a "general way" but on an "issue by issue" approach. And at the end this will lead to different governance models, dependung from the nature of the issue, but following the triangular model. 

As a result we will have numerous different governance models and not a unique (and centralized) one. There is not one "triangle", there are numerous diffent looking triangels ( I called this the "tower of triangels") which at the end of the day constitute a new governance model. Historically we are moving - as Mr. Hegel and Mr. Marx have said 200 years ago - from "simple structures to complex structures". 

ICANN - at least in my eyes - is still both an experiment and a pioneer in testing out such a triangular governance model. And regardless of all the weaknesses, it has made tremendous progress over the years (if I remember ICANN meetings in 1999, 2001 or 2003). ICANN does not need a new "master" (IGF, ITU, WICANN etc.) but further improved procedures and processes (following the inherent bottom up policy development proceeses defined in varios PDPs of SOs and ACs), it needs strong and self-confident stakeholders (including a stronger and enabled At Large community), it needs more independence and an external mechanism where the microcosmos ICANN, a triangular model in itself, can excercise trilaterlism on a higher level in a macrocosmos like the IGF. 

And - surprise, surprise -  it works so far. If you look what the IGF in Rio produced with the seven workshops on CIR and the interesting"enhanced communication" amolng ICANN, ITU and UNESCO that you see that the "powershift", provoked by the "information revolution", which leads to this new kind of "power struggle" we are witnessing the last 20 years is leading to new not yet defined models. 

Be patient, history needs some time. 

____________________________________________________________
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