[governance]On strategic thinking again (was Re: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 )

[Norbert Bollow]

Hi Ginger,

Is this statement useful for your needs?

  "I'm firmly in the middle between Michael's options #2 and #3".

Or with a bit more elaboration:

  "At the technical level there is nowadays no clear boundary line
  between what ITU is doing in regard to telephony and probably
  everyone agrees ITU should continue to do, and some aspects of what
  is clearly Internet governance and ITU cannot effectively do (if
  for no other reasons because so much fear of the ITU has been
  created)."

In my submission to the ITU I have suggested a way of introducing a
rather artificial boundary line (the main idea being to limit the scope
of applicability of the ITRs to what is done while using telephone
numbers for addressing purposes) which will not really help too much in
getting exiting and future public interest challenges addressed well,
but which should at least make it possible to get reality and the ITRs
aligned again:
http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-08/msg00002.html
(The importance of getting rid of the need for creatively interpreting
the ITRs in ways that contradict what the text of the ITRs actually
says should be clear... how else can the ITRs be part of an effective
governance system for anything?)

But it's not just telephony that's becoming increasingly hard to
differentiate from Internet governance. The same is happening to
policy on international trade, to international diplomacy on human
rights matters, to media policy (which is extremely important because
democracy needs a credible variety of trustworthy and free media), etc.

In my opinion, we really need to create a mechanism of enhanced
cooperation on international public policy issues, because the
mechanisms of the industrial age (including, but not limited to the
ITU) are not meeting today's needs. I understand that at the time when
the Tunis agenda was drafted with just the right amount of creative
ambiguity, people were thinking of the unresolved concerns surrounding
ICANN when the words "enhanced cooperation" were put there. But the
realm of unresolved Internet-related public interest concerns is much
larger today.

Specifically, in comparison to the industrial age mechanisms of
international cooperation, I would emphasize needs for enhancements
with regard to the following aspects:
- full transparency and full multistakeholder participation rights and
  effective empowerment of global civil society participation (by means
  of either doing all the *international coordination* work
  electronically via the Internet, or by providing travel funding for
  all public interest advocates who can demonstrate subject matter
  competence and independence of the particular interests of the
  various big companies).
- use of logical strategic thinking tools (such as those of the Theory
  of Constraints).
- focus the *international coordination* processes on creating good
  input documents for informing the work of national parliaments where
  the hard work would take place of choosing the balance between
  conflicts of interest (as opposed to internationally negotiating
  take-it-or-leave-it treaties).

The world of now+5years will, for better or worse, be significantly
different from todays's world. The same will be true to an even greater
extent about the world of today+10years.

I think that we really need to have our eyes open as we go forward.

Greetings,
Norbert

Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>:

> Norbert, I understand your point (I think), but I wonder if that
> boils down to #2? (Which I agree with Ian is what we want, even if I
> differ on the strategy needed to get there). Mike's 3 options are
> simplifications, but the are useful for this discussion (at least for
> me). Can you put #4 into a simpler statement, if you don't agree that
> it is part of #2 (and, please, not 'none of the above' :)).
> 
> I like this step back from the complexities. Generalizations
> sometimes have a place for a synthesis/snapshot of the big picture to
> get things in perspective, without implying that it gives an accurate
> or complete view.
> 
> Thanks, gp
> 
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> 
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> **
> **
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 November 2012 02:15, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it might be useful if the various discussants involved in
> > > the WCIT/ITU debate were to indicate which of these categories
> > > they would fall into:
> > >
> > >                 1. no regulation of the Internet period
> > >
> > >                 2. possible regulation/global governance of the
> > > Internet in certain areas for certain issues but not by the ITU
> > >
> > >                 3. regulation of the Internet in certain
> > > identified issue areas by the ITU
> >
> > My view differs from all of those, so I'd like to choose
> >
> > 4. since the boundary line between "Internet governance" and "the
> > various activities of governments and international organizations
> > which are not directly aimed at governance or regulation of the
> > Internet" is becoming increasingly blurred (telecommunications
> > convergence is only the tip of this iceberg IMO), we should take a
> > step back, and think about public interest goals and objectives
> > (stating them in a technology-neutral form that avoids to use the
> > word "Internet" or any explicit or implicit reference to the TCP/IP
> > protocol stack), and on the basis of that about strategies (I'd be
> > very surprised if there is a single public-interest objective in
> > the world today for which the Internet, together with some implied
> > assumptions on what the Internet is assumed to be like, isn't part
> > of every reasonable solution strategy), and on the basis of that
> > about roles and needed reforms of institutions including the ITU,
> > as well as about the formal, legal establishment of whatever
> > principles may be needed (in addition to the many aspects of
> > international human rights law that apply to the Internet).
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >


-------------- 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