[governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?

[Lee W McKnight]

Hey Norbert,

Having seen that specifically in the Internet context, the "anyone can
participate in the discussions that matter" kind of openness can work
rather well, I do not find it acceptable to settle for a lesser kind
of openness: If some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions
that matter, it is practically certain that their concerns will not be
given due consideration.

Again referencing the APA, and explaining why NTIA (and FCC) accept submissions from legal and other persons anywhere on the planet - anyone can play.
Meaning, one need not be a US citizen, or a US-based corporation, to submit comments to an NTIA proceeding, or to the FCC, to give 2 examples.  Sometimes the agencies may explicitly invite comment from others based beyond the US borders, as was done around the end of the JPA proceeding. But even when they do not extend explicit invitations - they must, per the APA - be able to demonstrate, especially in the hypothetical case of a future lawsuit, that they took all submissions and comments into account. Including yours. In Washington's insider politics, companies from around the globe - represented by their super-well-paid DC counsel - submit reams of responses to US regulatory proceedings; typically highlighting how many US employees they have and how whatever they want serves the US national public interest, by coincidence.

Still of course, one might suspect that the agencies tend to weigh more heavily submissions from US citizens and corporations, generally speaking.  But I believe that can;t really be provable in a court of law; or they would have violated the APA.

But yes still prior to that point, an administrative process has to decide something, just as for example ICANN staff (and/or Board) must at times - decide things. Hopefully taking full account of ICANN's own bottom up processes.

So again, to try to separate strands out, one might argue that for ICANN's own bottom-up processes, when they filter up and through the staff, a need for transparency and openness remains.  Such that arbitrary actions may not be taken or justified - arbitrarily.   When and if things don;t go quite as desired...well that's where APAish guidelines - might - come into play.  

And now, for: 

 Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed
> disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a
> whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not -
> apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet
> Governance.

I would suggest that that "ECTF" ("Enhanced Cooperation Task Force")
structure, that I have been proposing, should be suitable for this
purpose.


My comment: that might sound good...except I don;t know the rules by which your ECTF would play (beyond everyone is eligible to get in the game), nor the mission statement.  So the deus ex machina ECTF ball remains in your court : )

Lee





________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:09 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a  "Autonomous Internet" ?

Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that a host country agreement
> for ICANN is a good idea; but also agree with Alejandro that any
> proposed changes to core functions of the Internet must be
> approached with due caution, and with full understanding of how the
> current processes operate. And ideally, follow an open and
> transparent process of discussion and refinement.  Which is the kind
> of thing that the APA does reasonably well.

Hmm... in the context of that Administrative Procedures Act, "open"
seems to mean "anyone can observe" rather than "anyone can
participate in the discussions that matter".

Having seen that specifically in the Internet context, the "anyone can
participate in the discussions that matter" kind of openness can work
rather well, I do not find it acceptable to settle for a lesser kind
of openness: If some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions
that matter, it is practically certain that their concerns will not be
given due consideration.

> Asking - anyone - to develop a fully comprehensive model of the next
> stage of Internet Governance, presumes that person is as intimately
> familiar with the Internet's plumbing as David, John, McTim, Avri
> and Alejandro; but that they also have not one but three legal
> specializations/certificates as well.  Not to mention a fair
> appreciation of both public policy and contemporary business
> practice.
>
> Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed
> disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a
> whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not -
> apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet
> Governance.

I would suggest that that "ECTF" ("Enhanced Cooperation Task Force")
structure, that I have been proposing, should be suitable for this
purpose.

Greetings,
Norbert


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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