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

Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
Sat Nov 30 10:27:52 EST 2013


> Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
Deirdre: 
	You're so right but why then are this debate is flooded with one word: 'multistakeholderism'?

	The multistakeholder committee, the multistakeholder conference, the multistakeholder model, the multistakeholder pizza, the multistakeholder Internet.
	(take away the word from the International Conference over Internet Governance, convened by Brazil, what would it change? Not much I presume. Why after the brazilian official announcement, ICANN has re-phrased the title of the  conference in its blog  a multistakeholder Internet Governance model Conference?)
	Who needs this word so badly? I observe that this happens in a context where one single player is constantly dominating the 'game'? It seems like the 'Multistakeholder Salsa' has been put to the service of one. Isn't it more or less so?
	If at least, 'multistakeholderism' was a true ideology, I think many would rightfully question its values, program, instances, proposal, in a very open manner. They are many definitions, meaning not a common one. It seems odd to stick to one single word, when the current IG debate and the fading WSIS process (if not already moribond), need rebooting and fresh thinking.
	Some voices are asking for the IGF to be reinvented - sounds a good idea - but only to the condition of a multistakeALLder approach. Is that a proper new start for pourparlers?

	Constituency seems to be the very first thing to be addressed. So far, it seems like it has not been. People fighting each other to know who is more CS than the other and any outsider can understand their mutual questioning. People are State Department, then ISOC. People are Google, then IANA, still Google. People are Verizon, then ISOC. People are CS, then turn ICANN, with many applauding to that meritocratic recognition. All of that is so nepotist, and just not democratic - have we abandoned Democracy for something else? All of this speaks for the confusion regarding the constituencies.

	If the IGF would have freed itself from its ITU-ECOSOC-UN-WSIS-father-in-law, and unilaterally proclaimed its independent standing, it could have already call for an international convention to define the Internet Polity requested by many. IGF, a spin-off of the WSIS? But only to the condition that IGF would be able to convene a real constituency, with its different parts clearly defined, each one in its role and limitation. Who could contest the IGF to speak with full legitimacy then. Maybe IGF should have turned itself into an 'Occupy Internet Movement'. I'm pushing a little too far? After all, the users should be the first constituents. Internet allows a lot, even with an NSA big brother over the shoulder.

	History might help. Think about the US convention to install a legitimate body to govern over the American colonies. It was resisted by many, among the settlers and the British elite profiting from that new world, a lot of resistance, until it became clear to all that another way was possible, thanks to people such as Common Sense Paine. Hasn't thIGF got its own 'common sense' voices? But, indeed they set up a representative system to attend the convention, with clear mandate from their respective constituency, having to go back and forth, before giving a final position.
	The French have had a few years later their own convention, and it convened 3 multistakeholders (church, nobles, third-state) as strange as it sounds today. It ended with another new constitution. I think the big question for the IGF, or for anyone concerned with the unfair state of IG today, is about the constituencies to the contrat. Rousseau could be back on that. Let's be able to name a cat a cat. Instead of wearing a uniform (everyone becoming an so-called Multistakeholder), let's accept a full diversity of partners, and let's stop talking Multistakeholderistic. IGF is missing the funding to do that Convention? Let's crowdfund it. The Internet has a powerful leverage. Would any Brazilian, German conference be of danger to such an IGF? Surely not. If the constituencies are clearly identified and convened by the new IGF.

	Thinking that ICANN can be the starting point for that process seems very surprising. IGF should have been the most appropriate venue to launch the Internet Governance platform that History is calling. Or maybe is it time to concede that WSIS, and its IGF infant are both dying.

	Until a platform convenes the properly defined constituents, it won't be possible to use a common understanding of words. What we have now is more or less becoming a dialogue de sourds.  There is no use of any MultiCANNholder, MultiUSholder, Multiwhateverholder. 

Define the Constituents> Convene a Convention> Sign a Constitution> Use it.

Internet can bring Democracy to new levels of practice. If only it starts by setting an innovative governance  for itself. If not, IGFist will have failed an historical democratic opportunity. Should we expect anything like this from the ICANN, its High-Level Panel (entre amis and with the cool CS guys) and Fadi canoeing around with smiles and little gifts? 

JC
__________________________




Le 30 nov. 2013 à 14:28, Deirdre Williams a écrit :

> Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
> Deirdre
> 
> 
> On 30 November 2013 09:14, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Finding an appropriate term is something that is an ongoing difficulty for the reasons detailed in this thread. And the ICANN community, staff and board are regularly struggling with this. The current consultations for the Strategic Plan illustrate it. 
> 
> In this context, Milton rightly highlights the ambiguity when discussing "ICANN's internationalization". There are different complementary dimensions behind this word, and it is important to distinguish them. I see at least the following three aspects:
> The Organization's physical presence and outreach: this includes the current opening of hubs in Singapore and Istanbul, the creation of additional engagement offices, the role of the "regional" VPs, the development of multilingualism, etc... Generally speaking this is about ICANN moving closer to the people it serves, rather than having one core site of operations and asking people to just come to its meetings. In a nutshell, this is about ICANN thinking internationally. 
> The incorporation of the organization in one particular country (US in the State of California) and submission to one national legal regime vs exploring possible alternatives, such as: specific immunities, another country with specific regime for international non-profit organizations (cf. the report mentioned by Nick), or a more international status (INGO as Michael suggested) ... As mentioned by Karl, there are difficult legal and practical questions and this is why this has not necessarily moved much until now. Furthermore, ICANN had many other fish to fry in the last years, including improving its own operational capacity and the management of the new gTLD program. ICANN is performing a global public interest function, is therefore a global organization in that regard, even if the current international system does not easily (if at all) allow to create global structures that are not intergovernmental. 
> Last but not least,  the term "ICANN's internationalization" also includes, as Milton noted, the question of the role of the US administration in the IANA process. This itself actually covers two dimensions: the fact that the IANA contract giving ICANN the responsibility for the clerical verification of the requests for changes in the root zone file is still issued by the US government AND the specific role of the US NTIA in the final transmission of the change to Verisign. This is now less a taboo for discussion since the Montevideo Declaration, which is good, and I am deeply convinced there are ways to address this issue in a fact-based and constructive manner. That being said, the important part is more about the internationalization of NTIA's role in the IANA workflow than the internationalization of ICANN itself. And the solution for that - even if we use the term "internationalization" - is not a sort of Digital Security Council. Innovation is needed here if we collectively want to move to a system that guarantees for ALL actors the integrity of the root zone file, ensuring that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the root. 
> Maybe different words could be used for these different dimensions. 
> 
> I hope this helps. 
> 
> Bests
> 
> Bertrand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I like these distinctions and I think they are valid. However all three definitions overlook one of the most important aspects of the globalization or transnationalization of ICANN: the removal of the source of authority from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity.
> 
>  
> 
> --MM
> 
>  
> 
> From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal [mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net] 
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 3:52 PM
> To: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: 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
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net)
> Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors 
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> 
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131130/885e069b/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