[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Nov 30 11:11:31 EST 2013
On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word.
> Deirdre
Deirdre/ All
Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However,
there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress in
steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and make
social and political progress... Such a shared intention is key...
I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of ICANN'
1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject.
2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root file.
It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that US-NTIA
should be divested of that 'root change authorising' role..... Then the
question comes; (a) should the role then be exercised directly and
finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body to undertake this role (and
just this role and nothing else) is needed.
A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) above
is the best option. Some others think that every significant decision
pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be subject to a
second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by a body
different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way would be
to have some kind of international oversight board (not necessarily
inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by US-NTIA today.
Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but all such
decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an international
oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post facto role, such an
oversight board will exercise its role within clearly set our parameters
and rules.) A third way is to only have an appellate board which reviews
root change decisions only if an appeal is made to it through a due
process.
Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to shed
its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed along
the above three lines (others may add more options if any)
Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is easy
to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the jurisdiction
of one country and that it should be subject to international
jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an international
jurisdiction.
Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the
principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject to
US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to international
law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this principle. If we do,
we can then take up the subsequent discussion of how to establish an
appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for ICANN. I am sure we can
close onto a few clear options, if not agree on one.
A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas we
all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we do
not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of
alternatives.
parminder
>
>
> On 30 November 2013 09:14, Bertrand de La Chapelle
> <bdelachapelle at gmail.com <mailto: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:
>
> 1. *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.
> 2. *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.
> 3. 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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto: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
> <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
>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic
> Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net
> <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net>)
> Former Member, ICANN Board of Directors
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 <tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2011%2088%2033%2032>
>
> "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 <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
>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131130/4b32b2af/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