[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
Jean-Christophe Nothias
jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com
Sun Dec 1 14:19:41 EST 2013
> 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it doesn't exist yet)
Well it exists!!
When you do have an international treaty, such a Convention, the treaty specifies that its governance/ruling body (often named a secretariat), and whatever other instruments of ruling, is being settled within an existing framework. The convention gains a location, and can live its own life, under its funding statute. Convention are usually hosted. Need to find a host which the signatories agree upon.
International laws have much more room than one usually thinks. There is some experience and expertise to start with here.
The convention offers a lot of space. Funding (crowdfunding can be part of the convention, on top of whatever stakeholder wants to provide as a support)
Take another example; INTERPEACE is a spin-off from the UN, independent but enjoying a UN endorsement.
Easy to contact people working in the governance of these international conventions or spin-off and get a clear feed-back of what is working or not working, or just need some improvement.
Le 1 déc. 2013 à 19:37, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
> It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would protect ICANN from legislative interference.
>
> An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We are presented so far with 3 choices:
> 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross
> 2. California NPPBL
> 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude
>
> Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account.
>
> --MM
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
>
>
> On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his ideas in details at his blog.
>
> For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC.
>
> But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... parminder
>
>
>> I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here .
>> we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , openness, inclusiveness .
>>
>>
>> And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks.
>>
>> I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental or private interests.
>> coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments
>>
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>> I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game?
>>> another question, what benefit for the average users far from any geopolitical consideration in such case?
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2013/11/30 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>
>>> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>>> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google'
>>>> Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller
>>>> Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
>>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve.
>>>>
>>>> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization".
>>>>
>>>> ------
>>>> Rgds,
>>>>
>>>> Tracy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value.
>>>>
>>>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis.
>>>>
>>>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> __________________________
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Christophe Nothias
>>>> Editor in Chief
>>>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>>>
>>>> @jc_nothias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000
>>>> schrieb Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family
>>>>
>>>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word
>>>>
>>>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in
>>>>
>>>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not
>>>>
>>>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their
>>>> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has
>>>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global
>>>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of
>>>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is
>>>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national
>>>> relations.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very
>>>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased
>>>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns
>>>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe yet another term could be used???
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131201/61c1c003/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list