[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
Deirdre Williams
williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Sat Nov 30 12:48:05 EST 2013
In fact my next question was (now is)
Perhaps "multistakeholder" is also too big an idea being forced into too
small a space?
I really like the idea of a crowd sourced IGF :-)
Deirdre
On 30 November 2013 11:27, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 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'?
>
> T*he 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:
>>
>> 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>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
>
>
>
--
“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/c5de67c5/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