[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Dec 2 04:56:18 EST 2013


On Monday 02 December 2013 12:07 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with 
> comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as 
> Parminder is doing.

No, I am not equating them. You are just imagining that I am doing it. 
Both hold independently - (1) ICANN is incorporated under a US law, and 
(2) it is under full oversight of the US legal system. Are you denying 
this fact?

> 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.

A host country agreement requires international incorporation of ICANN 
which requires at least an elementary international law for that 
purpose. Now, if you agree to it, we are almost agreed on everything.

BTW, since you have often said that ICANN cannot be allowed to escape 
accountability (and thus cannot be left as a free float organisation) 
then this basic international law for incorporating ICANN and issuing it 
its mandate will also require listing some basic processes of 
transparency and accountability. you have also maintained that ICANN 
should be clearly subject to work within some basic human rights 
principles, and some other such stuff, and therefore this international 
law will also need to have those basic principles written into it...

That almost completes it. Can we agree on this.


>
> An honest argument makes a compa rison 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

Now this is a strange argument.. Actually 2 strange arguments. 
Dismissing some option because we dont have it at present! But it is you 
who speaks eloquently about post-internationalism, and to get 
transnational.... Arent you afraid of such talking about something which 
we dont even have a shred of at present, in any proper way? If not, why 
are you afraid of simply trying out a treaty, many of which exist at 
present. While this one we know would be certainly new and unique - but 
the international system is up to such evolution... And we can certainly 
stretch it, especially since the IG space has developed some unique 
percepts and elements of it own which have a widespread acceptability.

Second strange argument is that it will take 3-10 years... Other than 
the fact that we have been having this argument for about 10 years now, 
(1) it can indeed be done in less than 3 years, and (2) why should we be 
afraid how much time doing a right thing will take. Once we sign on the 
dotted lines agreeing to the basic involved principles and pathway to 
operational-ise them, we can always find an interim structure which is 
as close to the agreed principles as possible....

>
> 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.

Yes, we will take that into account as we write the international law...

parminder
>
> --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
>>>     <mailto: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
>>>>         <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>]
>>>>             *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM
>>>>             *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>             <mailto: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>
>>>>             [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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>         <mailto: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/20131202/570923be/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