[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

[Lee W McKnight]

Agreed.

The assumption that an Internet 'framework of principles' must be elaborated in same way as past UN-initiated frameworks I never agreed with.  

That it will take - years - even decades - to sort out, has also been obvious at least to me all along, and is what I repeatedly stated way back when.

That significant actors in various nation-states find the Internet of 2010 - discomfitting -  is also unsurprising.  

Still, a '2020' vision or 2050 plan or framework or (choose your preferred word which translates well into multiple languages), for where we would like to be heading towards could serve as a rallying point for a much broader swath of global civil society than IGC was able to reach....in the pre-Leaks era. In my always humble opinion.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:14 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Drake William; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

I agree that a framework convention is not usefull for the reasons
described. But a framework of principles approach, elaborated in a
multi-stake holder way and based on human rights like FoE can bring together
work already under way and focus attention on the need to provide
orientation and guidance.

Wolfgang Benedek


Am 13.12.10 07:48 schrieb "Drake William" unter
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>:

> Hi Milton
>
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> As one of the people who originated the call for a Framework Convention
>> during the WSIS, I feel we have to draw back from that at the present time.
>> ACTA, the increasingly reactionary US govt role in CIR governance, cyberwar
>> and "cyber-security," the Tunis Agenda's fallacious attempt to reserve
>> "public policy" for nation-states, and the current anti-MS moves of the
>> UN/CSTD all make it clear that states are not reliable or productive partners
>> in any effort to build democratic global governance. To call for a negotiated
>> convention, treaty or framework _in the context of the UN_ - an entity that
>> still has debates about whether the people should even be allowed to
>> participate in its deliberations, is crazy if one expects the outcome of such
>> a negotiation to preserve or enhance the freedom of the internet and the
>> rights of the people using it. Those negotiations will be all about the
>> interests of states.
>
> As one of the people who said this during WSIS (and took some heat for it),
> I'm not entirely clear on your shift.  It was already the case then that
> governments and firms wanted strong agreements on IPR and security and were
> asserting singular roles in public policy, and that the breadth and depth of
> real commitment to multistakeholderism had limits.  And there were all the
> structural problems, like sharp disagreements among blocs of countries that
> made a winning coalition for meaningful text impossible, the lack of a viable
> forum and the likely inter-organizational reactions to any cross-cutting
> instrument, the difficulty of translating very high level principles down into
> the workings of myriad and constitutionally different governance mechanisms,
> and so on.  The FC's problems were and are foundational and intrinsic, rather
> than being a function of the historical moment.  Which goes also to the
> question of what is sensible to advocate now with respect to EC...
>
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t