[governance] "Respective roles and responsibilities" (was Re: Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions
Mawaki Chango
kichango at gmail.com
Tue May 28 13:24:01 EDT 2013
I thought this discussion is suitable for another thread.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF
multistakeholder opinions
To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Peter H.
Hellmonds" <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
All,
>From government perspective, it is the power to enforce that also gives
them the power to institute the rules in the first place, some would say:
indeed the authority/legitimacy to make public rules. Classically, it
doesn't make any sense to ask governments to enforce rules that they didn't
make or consent to, at national level --unless they have been defeated in a
war or subjected to another government by power. It has been possible to
make and enforce international rules only through wars/coercion or though
cooperation amongst states. The concept of sovereignty was just one central
tool for shaping the ground rules of such inter-state cooperation.
Now networks, particularly electronic or computer networks, are a peculiar
kind of objects. The old sovereignty concept was effective because there
was an apparatus in place with the means to control territories (fight for
and defend them from "foreign" excursions) which it succeeded doing more
than any other entities. The rest was a matter of mutual recognition as a
pre-requisite for long-lasting peace. With these electronic/computer
networks, states are not at the helm. They were not initially in
controlling position; networks related rules (protocols, standards and even
technical policies with beyond-technical consequences) were made by
engineers with the possible participation of businesses and any private
citizens who have the knowledge and the access to contribute. As far as the
Internet, one government (has) had a particular position due to the fact
that it funded research that enabled the architecture of the super-network
and its original protocols. As such it has had power to make decisions and
sanction Internet rules which other governments did not have -- with the
mere existence of that capacity/power, no doubt that government has had
influence on which rules are possible which are not, even when they were
not directly making the rules.
In the mean time all the other states have discovered they have bargaining
chips, that network transactions may be virtual in their form but
they have physical-world consequences (which they think legitimate their
intervention) and, most importantly, those transactions are enabled through
physical points (the so-called "intermediaries"), the
territorial coordinates of which are known hence, they can be subjected to
control by virtue of the good old territorial sovereignty and public policy
authority. Indeed, everybody is located somewhere and has to follow the law
of the land.
So governments want to reclaim the traditional role of state as the public
policy authority for computer networks as well. Technical community and
civil society are saying: "Not so fast; you need to recognize that we have
a preeminent role to play here! At the very least, we need to do this
together." But the fact is as long as the concept of law (the public,
national law) is what it is, governments will have some basis to say: we
are the first public policy-making authority; the fact is beyond technical
standards, neither the technical community nor civil society are equipped
to enforce any public rules over any citizenry or unaffiliated user groups;
and the fact is, unless we reach a common understanding and agreement on
the terms of the cooperation amongst all those heterogeneous actors (as
homologous governments did in defining basic rules for international
cooperation), the technical community may keep on building standards but
many governments will just keep on blocking, censoring and cracking down on
the violators of their rules within their grasp (namely among their
citizenry). In other words, there won't be peace -- as once achieved in
Westphalia.
In itself, "respective roles" is not in my view much of the problem, for
all those heterogeneous groups of actors do have different roles: CS, for
instance, is not equipped to enforce any public rule, therefore its
position on public rule-making authority scale may arguably be seen as
lower than the government's; the technical community has preeminence in the
day-to-day operation/management of the networks (as recognized by
governments) so we may also recognize that governments have a
specific/special role in public policy making --the difference is one is
more opened for sound contributions from outside while the other tend to be
closed, and that's what needs to change. What we are bargaining for here is
this: 1) it is not because the government has public policy making and
enforcement powers that it necessarily knows better than anyone else,
particularly when it comes to the Internet, 2) as a result, government
needs to listen to the other segments of the society and heed their
expertise, contributions and will. In other words and following from point
1 above, all actors' views in the POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS should be
considered equally, while they may still have different institutional
roles, for instance, wrt the formal ADOPTION OF POLICY outcomes or
instruments. This inclusive and even multistakeholder participation is a
better way of governance not just as per democratic ideals, but also
because it produces more efficient outcomes than governance (and public
policy-making) by governments alone, both at home and internationally. The
challenge is we're yet to define and implement the material mechanisms that
will enable its application and which all actors will adhere to. It's all
the more challenging since it requires a cultural shift in a world
dominated in number by countries that don't have a tradition of
consensus-driven policy-making. So we have a lot of talking to do, have to
persuade, campaign, advocate, etc. and depend on governments' good will and
maybe some dose of public shaming, etc.
What the Internet is giving us the opportunity to do is to fundamentally
change the terms of public governance in general, not just for the Internet
(if only because everybody knows by now the impact the Internet can have on
the (re-)distribution of power in a country.) Denying any notion or role
differential in the Internet policy domain and rejecting related language I
not the point; we are instead calling for a new compass where whatever the
roles and the role differential, relationships are to be different. This is
a deeper fight, and is going to be a longer one, I think.
Mawaki
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds <
peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> The term "in their respective roles" stems from art. 49 Geneva Declaration
> of Principles which was reiterated in art. 35 Tunis Declaration.
>
> There was a special sovereign right for development of public policy
> accorded to states, not governments. Presumably, democratic states would
> use democratic (multi-stakeholder) ways and processes to determine public
> policies, whereas non-democratic states would be sovereign in how they do
> their policy development, whether we like it if not.
>
> In order to come to international understandings, my interpretation is
> that these sovereign states need to cooperate. If they follow the
> interpretation of "enhanced cooperation" that is in use in the European
> Union institutions, then a couple of like minded states could cooperate
> even if their is no full consensus with all states.
>
> So, there was no recognition of international business or international
> civil society to have a sovereign right in this sphere, although they are
> invited to contribute in their own roles.
>
> Peter
>
> On 26.05.2013, at 11:22, "Roland Perry" <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
> wrote:
>
> In message <DC4CABFE-C03C-4A11-A58E-167FB68FEC19 at istaff.org>, at 12:14:32
> on Fri, 24 May 2013, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> writes
>
> > This brings up an excellent point... Has there been attempt to
> elaborate the "respective roles and responsibilities", and in particular,
> as to what that phrase actually means with respect to governments?
> >
> > I believe that multistakeholder policy development should be open to
> all in equal roles, but it is also clear that there are some additional
> aspects which are unique to governments (such as enforcement.) An
> elaboration of what is meant by "respective roles" may not lead to
> agreement, but will certainly improve communication of the various
> perspectives
>
> One distinct possibility is that it means "everyone is expected to their
> day-job, in so far as it maps into the IG space", although it doesn't
> exclude others from offering helpful advice.
>
> Also, don't forget self-regulatory enforcement, for example of IP Address
> Policy, by organisations other than Governments.
> --
> Roland Perry
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20130528/e157a04b/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