[governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting)

[Norbert Bollow]

JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 23:37 01/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>> > What is discussed when talking of the "death of the internet" are
>> > two changes of paradigm.
>> 
>> Talking of the "death of the internet" is actually pretty ridiculous
>> IMO. Among the plausible interpretations of what is going on, the
>> most dramatic would be that some paradigms of Internet governance
>> could be going through a foundational crisis from which some of them
>> might emerge either rejuvenated or dead. Furthermore, some people's
>> trust in some or all of the endorsers of the “OpenStand” declaration
>> may have died.
> This is an extreme but very interesting idea.
> Since the OpenStand signatories  and endorsers represent what makes
> the internet and data processing today world (except ICANN and
> Unicode), could you please be a little bit more explicit?
> 
> In addition, if those (IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C, RIRs) are dead –

I didn't call them dead, I only wrote that some people might, on the
basis of OpenStand's unbalanced market oriented focus, have stopped
trusting them.

> their internet is necessarily gone with them, unless some other
> organizations have taken over?
> 
>> But the Internet itself is certainly alive and well.
> Since your position is certainly consistent, you need to give a
> definition of that internet.

I personally distinguish between

1) Internet in a narrow technical sense: The set of devices that are
able to exchange Internet Protocol datagrams via the largest connected
component of Internet Protocol networks, together with all the technical
infrastructure that is dedicated to the purpose of enabling them to do
so.

2) Internet in a broader technical sense: Short for “internetwork”, any
set of interconnected autonomous packet switching networks.

3) Internet as an information and communication system: the global
information and communication system that: (i) is logically linked
together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet
Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to
support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or
other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes
accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered
on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.
(This is slightly modified from a definition adopted in 1995 by the US
Federal Networking Council)

4) Internet in the full systemic sense: All of the above together with
the social and economic phenomena that drive the uses of that
information and communication system or systems, and that shape how
it's all evolving.

In my opinion, “the Internet itself is certainly alive and well” is a
true statement for each of the above four ways in which I think the
word “Internet” can reasonably be used.

>> If the role of international organizations is to facilitate
>> discussion and coordination among governments in regard to their
>> roles in Internet governance, with opportunities for members of
>> other stakeholder groups to participate in the discussions, why
>> should “international organizations” be listed explicitly any more
>> than say the IGC which has such a role for civil society?

> From this answer of yours I infer that you deny International
> organizations a structural main importance in the information
> society. This is an interesting position.

No I just didn't want to make the assertion that they currently have a
significant specific and distinct role in Internet governance.

Currently the list of actors with such a distinct role is IMO:
Governments, civil society, private sector, standardization
organizations, specialized Internet governance institutions.

Maybe at some point in the future one or more international
organizations will take on significant specific roles in the field of
Internet governance that are significantly distinct from their current
role of coordinating actions of governments. Then I will update my list
to reflect the new reality.

> Anyway, if you deny international organizations to be a stakeholder
> category, where do you locate the IGF?

The IGF is a place where all kinds of stakeholders meet and talk,
including representatives of international organizations (who in the
IGF context are appropriately grouped as part of the “governments”
stakeholder category), and including people who don't fit neatly in any
particular categorization of stakeholders.

> I know you want to update the Tunis agenda,

Huh? There are a lot of things that I want to do (more than I could
possibly find time for), but updating the Tunis agenda is not one of
them. I may have implied that I don't feel a need for my thinking to
be stuck in the precise wording of the Tunis Agenda, but as an
international softlaw instrument, I don't see any particular need for
the Tunis Agenda to be updated.

> but this last point seems like a big update, no?

In the “working definition of Internet governance”, the Tunis Agenda
lists three stakeholder categories as having roles in Internet
governance: Governments, private sector, civil society.

I honestly cannot recall having suggested that that three stakeholder
categories model should be changed. If I have ever suggested that, that
would have to have been before I read Jeremy Malcolm's insightful and
in my opinion absolutely convincing analysis of that question.

There is a significant trend towards recognizing “technical community”
as a fourth stakeholder category. I don't see this as having a
convincing justification however, and I believe that the introduction
this additional stakeholder category has not been particularly helpful,
and that it would be better for technical community people to engage as
part of either “government” (those who participate in an official,
government-endorsed role) or “civil society” (those who have ensured
their independence from government interests and from business
interests that relate to the topics that they're engaging on) or
“private sector” (those representing a company with the ability to
be a change agent in ways directly related to the topics under
discussion), or “no clear stakeholder category affiliation” (all
others), and list “technical community” membership as being on a
different dimension, similar to how someone with expertise in
international law might list being a member of that community as a
qualification rather than as a stakeholder group affiliation.

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

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