[governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom

[Milton L Mueller]

Au contraire, Wolfgang, the WSIS concept of "respective roles" is a reactionary (and futile) attempt by nation-states to preserve the status quo, retaining for themselves something like "sovereignty" in the transnational sphere. 
Govts on top, business runs things, civil society runs around and brings food baskets to the hungry. It can't work. However this problem is solved, it won't be through some corporatist assignment of "roles" to such broad "stakeholder groups" but through mobilized people contending for their rights and creating an emergent transnational legal-political context. 

________________________________________
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:24 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: Anja Kovacs
Subject: AW: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom

Jeanette

this is the right point. And this is the chalenge for researchers. In the IG WGIG definition we said that th stakeholders participate in IG "in their respective roles". This langauge came out of the understanding that all stakeholders has to be involved, no stakeholder can substitute the other one but each stakeholder has to bring its core competences to the inclusive "multilayer multiplayer mechanism". It is a question of Internet co-governance and here we are still in a very experimental phase at an early stage. A PhD to clear "the respective roles" would be great.

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Gesendet: Mo 21.09.2009 09:40
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: Anja Kovacs
Betreff: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom




In the long run, I think, a de-nationalized system of governance would
have to re-invent many of the governmental wheels that were thrown
overboard at the outset.

While it is true that governments often seem not to understand the
implications of transnational regulation, we are still in need of
institutions that balance the dynamics of profit making against the
public interest. Take Google Books, for example. I am glad that there is
a Department of Justice (plus some other governments and
supra-governmental bodies) able to say no to this private settlement
that would have led to a monopoly over orphan books. I don't see how
norms (understood in the broad sense) can be enforced, and also appealed
against, without governments and courts.

At the same time, private bodies such as ICANN seem to adopt over the
years more and more of the normative criteria and mechanisms that are
typical for the democratic nation state. The issue of accountability is
a good example. Yet, democratic governments offer much better
accountability provisions than any private agency. Thus, transforming
governmental structures to allow for transnational,
multi-stakeholder-based rule making sounds much more realistic to me
than to altogether abandon the procedural achievements of the nation state.

jeanette

jeanette

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Anja: Excellent points. Quick and relatively superficial answer due
> to time constraints: we work for the democratization of ICANN, or
> rather, the recognition of rights by it (the liberal element) and the
> improvement of representation (the democratic element). I believe
> that we attack this problem at the sectoral level only - in Internet
> governance exclusively. Any attempt to replace or eliminate states
> comprehensively would be precipitous and dangerous for the reasons
> you cite. I think the info-communications sector can be detached from
> the nation-state more readily because of its more transnational
> nature.
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs
>> [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:52
>> PM To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Letter to Rod Beckstrom
>>
>>
>> Following on from Bertrand's email, I have an additional question,
>> triggered by the exchange between Milton and Parminder.
>>
>> If it is denationalisation that we are striving for, rather than
>> internationalisation, then what will democratic representation in
>> this global polity look like, and how will it be achieved? It is
>> fine to say that new models should not allow for a corporate
>> take-over, but how to ensure that, especially in a world where the
>> predominance of corporations goes questioned so little?  Although
>> state representation is no guarantee that the interests of
>> marginalised people in the South will be taken into account, no
>> other system of representation has managed to do a better job at
>> the global level so far, and it remains tremendously unclear to me
>> how corporates can be entrusted with the public interest without
>> clear government oversight.  If I am to think away states, I would
>> like to have an idea of what the alternatives would look like.
>> That would also help in getting more of a sense of whether the path
>> to a democratic global polity might indeed pass through ICANN, or
>> not.
>>
>> Thanks, Anja
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 18:34 +0200, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>> Dear Meryem,
>>>
>>> Looking at your interesting exchange with Milton regarding the
>>> "global" or non global nature of ICANN, I'd like to ask two
>>> complementary questions : - what would be required in your view
>>> to make ICANN truly global ? what kind of modification ? - and
>>> can such an outcome be obtained without participating in ICANN's
>>> processes, (which brings the risk of legitimizing it, if I
>>> understand you well) ?
>>>
>>> These questions are not jokes. I think you both touch upon very
>>> difficult issues that a lot of people are grappling with. I
>>> sincerely am interested in practical suggestions. The issue of
>>> ICANN's accountability to all stakeholders will be high on the
>>> agenda in the post-JPA framework.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bertrand
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The whole point with ICANN in this discussion is that it is NOT a
>>>  "global institution".
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean here. If its effects are global and it is
>>> institutionalized it is, in my definition, a global institution.
>>> And ICANN more or less meets both criteria. I am sure you
>>> understand that no global polity will spring perfectly into
>>> being.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure. But my definition is different from yours. I think ICANN is
>>> an organization, led and driven by private companies and
>>> interests (including multi-nationals), still having to be
>>> somewhat accountable to the US gov, but willing to get rid of
>>> this. Well, this is quickly written and misses many details and
>>> subtleties, but that's to explain why, in my opinion, it doesn't
>>> fit any acceptable definition of a global institution. I think
>>> your definition is too inclusive here.
>>>
>>>
>>> rules. Because if you enter it, you back it, whatever the
>>> genuineness of your intentions and efforts.
>>>
>>> Yes, one does have to make choices. If it's a choice between the
>>> DNS and IP addresses being taken over by states/IGOs or some
>>> modification and evolution of the ICANN/RIR regime I've made my
>>> choice.
>>>
>>>
>>> You fall into this again. I've thought we've gone beyond the
>>> ICANN vs. ITU debate?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial
>>> pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
>>> Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et
>>> Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel
>>> : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>>>
>>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine
>>> de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than
>>> uniting humans") plain text document attachment
>>> (message-footer.txt)
>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80
>> 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ 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