[Fwd: [governance] Workshop proposal - Internationalisation of

[Parminder]

Hi Bill
>
> I am probably not alone in failing to read 'no longer just a technical 
> artifact' as meaning we're proposing a ws on xyz issues and 
> institutions beyond CIR.  Which is why I asked several times for 
> clearer specification of what we're talking about.
I have been trying my best to clarify, and I am happy to discuss this 
further. As you agree this is an important discussion to have.

>> The real problem here I think is that we seem to see 'political 
>> oversight' of ICANN-plus in a vacuum. In fact such oversight in not 
>> only connected with but actually arises out of other political IG 
>> issues - IPR/ public domain, cultural diversity, FoE, security, 
>> development needs etc . So 'oversight' and other global Internet 
>> policy issues, to a good extent, need to be seen in one bunch.
>
> I've never heard the term 'oversight' being used in relation to 
> non-ICANN issues, which in many cases do have authoritative 
> institutions and rule systems.  But again, if we're going to propose 
> this more expansive formulation, it'd be helpful to specify which 
> issues are thought not to have oversight now and what form that might 
> take.
Oversight is connected to these issues, as we can see from the role 
formulation for the agency that does 'ICANNoversight' in  various WGIG 
models. When you say 'in many cases do have authoritative institutions 
and rule systems' you are underestimating the new context that the 
Internet brings in, which is the whole point, or else we would not be 
spending so much time in this group or at the IGF etc, and would instead 
engage only with WIPOs and WTOs and ITUs of this world. Cyber-security 
treaty is a completely new thing with no international institutional 
home (yet). Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act (ACTA) is another one. An EU 
official whne asked why arent they doing this at WIPO said that ACTA was 
about enforcement, and WIPO isnt very conducive  in this regard.  Apart 
form other problems with this formulation, it is a fact that a lot of 
key internet related issues in ACTA are indeed unique, may have direct 
impact on individuals and firms and not just issues of negotiating 
overall trade/IP regimes as in the existing institutions you allude to. 
The 'trans-boundary Internet' workshop IGC sponsored last year raised 
many such issues that have urgent and important trans-national 
implications, but no way of resolving them is a fair and proper manner. 
What is your institutional proposal to deal with all those issues??

>>
>>>  I do not think the idea of need for global governance in IG arena 
>>> regarding non CIR issues is that elusive.
> Nope, and indeed there is such GG in many cases now.  But the MAG and 
> potential attendees might not read oversight as meaning this, so 
> hopefully if the ws is approved we can submit language that more 
> clearly specifies the scope and domain.
Yes, lets work on developing such a language. This discussion may 
contribute to it.

>> Undemocratically negotiated cyber-security treaty, and now the 
>> anti-counterfeiting trade treaty, are all pointers to what we are 
>> talking about here.
>
>
> FMI, are there any treaties or governance instruments that you would 
> consider to be democratic?
Any treaty that has at least all the governments on board, is clearly 
much more democratic than any other with a few governments negotiating a 
deal which will sooner or later become global in its application. And 
there are many treaties that are negotiating in this manner. I find your 
dismissive comment on lack of democracy in cyber-security treaty and 
ACTA a bit surprising. I am for moving beyond inter-governmental systems 
in IG area, but not having even  all the governments on board is 
obviously much more unacceptable. What kind of 'development agenda in 
IG' one can speak about without seeking full representation of 
developing countries on the table, which starts with pointing out the 
undemocratic nature of present systems.

>
>> The manner in which such things are being done now are certainly much 
>> worse than a situation where WGIG 1, 3 or 4 models are in some way 
>> involved.  I don't think that CS's best strategy is to keep saying 
>> ITU is bad, ICANN is not ok in exercising political sovereignty, ACTA 
>> is not a right way to do things, without any suggestions or even 
>> discussions of possible alternatives.
>
> Strongly agree, criticizing is relatively easy, suggesting politically 
> and functionally superior alternatives is much harder, and were we 
> ever to manage this it could attract some attention and discussion. 
I constantly do suggest possible ways to go forward. Unfortunately, 
despite repeated exhortations I haven't heard you on this issue, unless 
of course we hare happy with present systems. (I will discuss your 
'transparent information aggregation and collective assessment' option 
given below a little later.) I think that if we push for 
internationalization of IG, even if ICAAN oversight is the starting 
point, we do move towards a new global body. Even EU is serious about 
Internationalisation, and they also apparently see it as being broader 
than ICANN. Quoting from agenda of forthcoming EU consultation

"Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or 
necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective 
roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet 
and if so, how? "

How is that you are simply not able to understand what 
internationalisation could mean, when so many others can?

Anyway, any such global body in which such 'internationalisation' 
coheres, like the ones mentioned in WGIG models, will also begin to 
address uniquely Internet related transnational issues, which will be 
much more democratic way of doing it than what is happening  now. Such 
an option is also better for civil society because this new body will 
almost certainly have much more space  for  civil  society  than the  
present  inter-governmental  systems.I can discuss these options more of 
you and/ or others show interest. But not exploring these or other new 
options at all we are either letting default old-world existing 
inter-gov systems take over IG, or supporting the neo-lib stance of no 
((real and political) global gov. Neither is an acceptable option for 
me, and i dont think it is to most in this group.
>
>> If so, what in your opinion is the best way to go ahead? Will be glad 
>> to hear them. Non-governance is not an option. These are the issues 
>> that the workshop will deal with apart from problems with US's 
>> unilateral oversight of the ICANN.
>
> This is sort of a big question.  The best way forward depends on the 
> case at hand, I don't see an uber-solution to the entire 
> problematique, framework convention or otherwise.  Although a broad 
> scope mechanism for transparent information aggregation and collective 
> assessment could have been useful.  That's what some of us hoped the 
> IGF could evolve into, and discussing what this might of meant could 
> be useful even if its chances of happening are pretty much zero.
So basically after asking me to set forth the options I have in mind, 
you yourself duck the issue. And you keep on saying that what I am 
proposing is never clear enough. How is "a broad scope mechanism for 
transparent information aggregation and collective assessment" as a 
governance system for clarity :) !  Frankly, Bill, I have just no idea 
what you are speaking about. And since I have heeded your advice for 
clarity and gone to considerable length to expound some institutional 
options I think are worthy of consideration, why you too not make it 
clear what exactly are you speaking about here. I basically read your 
formulation as close to  'no governance' which is the principal 
neo-liberal take on global governance, but I may be wrong.

Parminder

>
> 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