[governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...)

[Norbert Bollow]

I had written:
>> 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.

Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> replied:
> 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.

What I meant with "the discussions that matter" is the discussions
in which the various viewpoints and arguments, that stakeholders
have communicated, are evaluated.

Consider for example the case of the cyrillic variant of .bg - even
though the Bulgarians were able to provide input documents to the
evaluation process, the process resulted in a decision which in my
eyes is absolutely absurd. I suspect that procedurally, probably the
problem was that the question about similarity to .br was evaluated
by people with a very ASCII-centered worldview, and there was no
course of action available to the Bulgarians for ensuring a reasonably
strong representation, within the discussions that mattered, of people
whose native languages use different writing systems.

> 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.

So, to the extent that the submission of these responses is effective,
it will have the effect of increasing the degree to which US
government policies are captured by the interests of international
big business, independently of whether the firms in question are US
based or not?

This is not the kind of internationalization of Internet governance
that I would consider to be worthwhile.

> 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 : )

I'm not sure about the way forward for developing a more concrete
proposal.

One possible course of action would be for me to write up my
current ideas in the form of an Internet Draft (ID), solicit
feedback, revise the ID, and repeat repeatedly. I suspect
however that it might be very difficult or impossible to engage
governments in that kind of process.

Alternatively, I wonder whether it would be possible to create,
even without offcial blessing from any UN body (which in the
current climate is clearly impossible to obtain), a WGIG like
multistakeholder working group that would work out a concrete
proposal.

Hmm... maybe the best available course of action will be to start
with the ID based process, using it to
a) create an input document for a WGIG like multistakeholder working
group with strong governmental participation, and at the same time
b) build credibility for the proposal to initiate such a WGIG like
multistakeholder group.

Does this sound reasonable?

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