[governance] RE: Shared Decision Making Procedures

[Milton L Mueller]

Wolfgang:


> -----Original Message-----
> Two comments here:
> 
> 1. we should not mix ITU with the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation. You
> are right both ITU and some UN member states have their own
> interpretation from the Tunis Agenda (TA). But this are two different
> processes and it should remain separate.

[Milton L Mueller] OK. But how separate are they, really? Is the UN CSTD more hospitable a clime than the ITU? Are they both not fronts in the same battle?

> 2. Be reading the Tunis Agenda you have to put para. 35 a into the
> context of para. 34. 

[Milton L Mueller] Meh. Paragraph 34, which has the WGIG "working definition of Internet governance," contains the same irritating "in their respective roles" qualifier. You are still safely contained in your box. 

> My interpretation is that governments, if they execute their respective
> role and developing Internet related public policies, according to para.
> 34 have to "share their decision making capacity" with the other
> stakeholders. With other words, Tunis went one step beyond Geneva and

[Milton L Mueller] I don't see that there at all, alas. The fact of the matter is that if you are relying entirely on WSIS documents the game is rigged against true Multi-staleholderism. The whole point of that exercise was for sovereigntist states to assert (no matter how no-op and futile) their authority to make something called "public policy" for the internet.

> Additionally para. 37 is important in this context. It says "We seek to
> improve the coordination of the activities of international and
> intergovernmental organizations and other institutions concerned with
> Internet governance and the exchange of information among themselves. A
> multi-stakeholder approach should be adopted, as far as possible, at all
> levels." This is certainly an invitation to enhance cooperation among

[Milton L Mueller] That's relatively good. But it can't be used to override or ignore the bad stuff.

> The ITU included in a footnote
> (for the first time in its history) in Resolution 102, 103 and 133 at
> its Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (2010) which expressed the
> wish for collaboration.

[Milton L Mueller] Actually that is not quite right. I checked the original Res. 101, which was dated 2006. It includes in the main text - not a footnote - a desire to collaborate with internet organizations such as IETF, RIRs, etc. Conspicuously missing from that list is ICANN. But the 2010 variant expresses a general desire for collaboration and then moves the list of specific organizations to a footnote. And there - miraculo - the list contains ICANN. 

> My impression is that governments did not realize in Tunis what they
> signed when they accepted the definition in para. 34. To be frank, 34

[Milton L Mueller] I think they did, and that's why they got the 4 dirty words into it: "in their respective roles", as Avri suggests.


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