AW: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Jan 25 04:59:14 EST 2011


Wolfgang,

This makes sense. However, we have to remember that the stakeholder 
groups were not properly identified, and that makes the process difficult.

- Regalian Domain and Private Sectors were well identified. The 
others were not, IMHO (Civil Society, International 
Organizations);  and the "Internet community" is not an answer as it 
is only a part of the true Internet community as per RFCs and history..
- as a result: there is a missing technical equilibrium detrimentally 
impacting the political balance on the CS side that has not 
attempted, so far, to correct it in teaming up with lead users (those 
who have the capacity to adapt their digital ecosystem to their own 
needs) and @larges  (those who try to compose with the de facto dominance)

Please observe that the two other stakeholders groups (Govs and 
Industry) have structures dealing more or less with the three 
management layers (short-term operance, medium-term governance, and 
long-term adminance) while CS confines itself to Governance issues 
and, therefore, misses the operational and architectural knowledge, 
capacity  and power that others have, leaving it to hackers 
(operance) and to the emerging IUsers community (adminance), which 
does not consider the sole Internet as a basis for the Information 
Society and therefore gets bored with the Internet only governance issues.

In addition, please observe that we actually are in a non-military 
world war with two main battlefields: money (what is to be the new 
nature of money) and standardization (will the US industry be able to 
standardize the world, to the benefit of its e-commerce management, 
before it "disappears"). The "International organizations" 
stakeholder group could have included ISO, IETF, etc. Banks and SDOs 
are not present in the Internet Governance, officially. However, 
Banks are here through the financial issues (what happens if Internet 
advertising becomes less efficient?) and SDOs are here through 
technology. Eventually, this makes different unacknowledged but 
effective powers that some try to enroll. To some extent, so are 
hackers (private and military) who cannot "shut-down" the net but can 
certainly directly or indirectly dim it.

I have for a long time prepared and worked for those who are slowly 
re-emerging now, i.e. the IUsers, the people who are able to build 
and take advantage from an Intelligent Use of the digital ecosystem 
(Internet being included). What I observe is that the few of them who 
have started joining forces are not very excited by the lack of 
capacity of CS to impose anything in any domain, as in what the UN or 
ICANN can do or credibly try in their own respective domain.

IMHO, as long as we cannot impose our positions in the 
Network/Technology area (i.e. be technically independent in our own 
strata [Internet Use Interface]), we will be controlled by those who 
also control the two other technical spaces: the inner network (ISOC 
bodies and ICANN, with GAC) and the outer network (digital industries 
and governments).  Without a CS umbrella/objective alliance to help 
them developing, IUsers will emerge more slowly (as is the case) and 
may overdo it when bluntly interoperating, should I say interupting 
(my fear is about the coming opposition between ICANN gTLD managers 
and Govs sponsored govTLDs). Anyway, this was determinedly prepared 
by ICANN by denying IDNgTLDs access to Fast Track.

jfc


At 14:54 22/01/2011, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>Hi Parminder
>
>like all diplomatic documents you can read them in different ways. 
>The authors say that such an (intergovernmental) mechanism would 
>"complement" the IGF, not "sbstitute" the IGF. With other words, we 
>have a multistkaeholder mechanism and part of this - as a key 
>element in such a multiplayer multilayer mechanism -you have an 
>intergovernmental body which has a special responsibility for 
>development and public policy issues (like other ülayers in the 
>mechanism have a special responsibility for other elements of the 
>whoe diversified and decentrlized mechanism).
>
>Remember the Internet Governance definition adopted by the Head of 
>states of all UN members said that the stakeholder operate "in their 
>respective roles" and should share "principles, norms, rules, 
>decision making procedures". I read this that we have to deal with 
>two layers: Each stakeholder group has its own responsibility (and 
>has its own institutional mechanism). Governments have their 
>intergovernmental organisations like the GAC, ITU,  UN and probably 
>something which will deal with the new Internet related challenges. 
>Other stakeholders have their mechanism (like the private sector has 
>ICANN, IETF, RIRs and probably also new bodies if this is needed). 
>On the upper layer the various stakeholders have to "share decision 
>making" by takling into account the "respective role".
>
>In practice this means that means that governments are certainly 
>better qualified in a multistakeholder mechanism to contribute to 
>the management of public policy issues while non-governmental 
>technical bodies are better qualified to deal with the technical 
>issues. However all stakeholder groups should have in their "inner 
>life" open, transparent and democratic procedures and have also 
>channels for participation of the other stakeholders.
>
>Wolfgang
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
>Gesendet: Sa 22.01.2011 12:58
>An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>Cc: Ian Peter
>Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
>
>
>Wolfgang,
>
>I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me 
>humbly submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with 
>IT for Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a 
>fact that was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA 
>statement. These overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new 
>institutional structure, listing of global network neutrality and 
>A2K as key global IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter.
>
>Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken  when you say "...the 
>objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can 
>"enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both 
>among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement 
>represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be.
>
>Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is 
>very clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet 
>and thus must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are 
>obviously ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly 
>that of IBSA in the below regard, I must quote some passages from 
>the IBSA statement to show how clearly have you mis-read it.
>
>
>
>               "  Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be 
> discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy 
> point of view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform 
> mandated to systematically discuss them and make decisions as 
> appropriate. It is thus necessary for governments to be provided a 
> formal platform under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these 
> issues. Such a platform would also complement the Internet 
> Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum  for discussing, 
> sharing experiences and networking on Internet governance."
>
>
>         " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and 
> established will allow the international community to accomplish 
> the developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...."
>
>
>
>Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation....
>
>
>
>            "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from 
> all international organizations including the ITU, and should 
> recommend on the feasibility and desirability of placing the 
> Enhanced Cooperation mechanism within an existing international 
> organization or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with 
> Enhanced Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for 
> the process."
>
>
>Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as
>
>"...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" 
>their communication, coordination and collaboration both among 
>themselves and and with other stakeholders. "
>
>However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is 
>all what they really meant.
>
>Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>         Parminder:
>
>         IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own 
> organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional 
> development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the 
> open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'.
>
>         Wolfgang:
>
>         If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover 
> that this is different from previous proposals for an 
> intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there 
> is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet 
> Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body 
> should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms 
> but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about 
> "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or 
> "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover".  And this is an 
> important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF 
> Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue 
> by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an 
> intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather 
> different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the 
> Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border 
> Internet Expert Group is that we recogn
>         ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of 
> governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this 
> intergovernmental component should be embedded into a 
> multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to 
> create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision  making, 
> the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders 
> can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration 
> both among themselves and and with other stakeholders.
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              governance at lists.cpsr.org
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>              http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>PK
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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



More information about the Governance mailing list