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

[Parminder]

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

I know it takes quite a bit to try to respond to your elaborate theses of
this kind, but I will try a few comments.


The processes and forces you speak of are indeed novel and very exciting.
They will reform and transform our governance systems, and if we are
careful, and do it properly, transform it in the right directions. However,
these processes ARE NOT the governance system, nor likely to become THE
governance system. 

One of the classical issues of governance is the provision of public goods
(I don’t like this economic concepts based reasoning for a political issue
too much, but will still use it here). And the classical issue about public
goods is that they cannot be produced/ provided with everyone working
independently as per their own interests. We often need to shape that 'one
thing' or a set of 'one things' for everyone. That is the context of policy
making....

Now as we wait, as per your advise, important internet related (default or
explicit) polices are being written by technology companies, by FCC (of USA)
decisions, by OECD kind of exclusive clubs (they are gathering with this
precise agenda in July in Seoul). ICT arena is such that whichever policy
becomes dominant that becomes the default for everyone - there is often very
little local, even national level, choices here. (if you doubt this, we can
have a separate discussion on this).

And ICTs, with the Internet being the chief paradigm, are restructuring all
major social institutions, and therefore these technology polices become
central to the manner of these social restructurings. Now, having described
how these tech polices are being written today, it is not difficult to see
in which direction these far-reaching information society related social
restructuring are pre-disposed (there are sub-altern counter-directional
changes as well, but the dominant forces have a lot of say in most emerging
configurations).  

Do you not think that soon it will be too late to influence the emerging IS
configurations. Would not a lot of irreparable damage done with regard to
the interests of disadvantaged sections? Would not the domaint section have
developed, and structurally entrenched, even more unassailable position?

Has your analysis considered these not too insignificant issues? 

This is why political power driven governance remains necessary. It is for
example necessary to enforce re-distribution polices at national level,
which are unlikely to be negotiated at MS platforms. And re-distribution is
only one, and the most extreme, example of fairness, equity and social
justice enforcing governance system outputs. Almost all policies have some
such elements.

As, I said, I agree that IS provides the opportunity for great amount of
governance reform. And this can mean reduced power hierarchies, and more
soft power based processes. As long as these opportunities are spoken of
along with the continued relevance of more clearly political (which includes
legitimate power exercising) governance system there is great merit in
exploring them and experimenting with them.

However, any description that constructs models of governance exclusively on
the marketplace principles of self-interest based negotiations is extremely
inimical to the interests of disadvantaged sections, and the most dangerous
statement of unabashed neo-liberalism. 


I think/hope you are not doing that, but then it is very useful to put
appropriate riders in the right places in your arguments. 

So, while your model may have some validity within a larger more nuanced
context, it is not right to advise those who interests are big adversely
affected to just wait... for some good may still come. The choice of models
from the many possible is itself a political choice and can be linked to our
own interests and those whom we feel more connected to.


Parminder 


-----Original Message-----
From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:46 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; Governance Caucus
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Alert: Reforming ICANN

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


____________________________________________________________
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