[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

[parminder]

On Wednesday 04 February 2015 03:43 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
>
> Just to clarify,
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Bill, you mention a range of issues, which are of a very different 
>> nature on the technical to social-political spectrum, and will 
>> therefore require different appropriate decision making mechanisms. I 
>> dont think it is good to mix them to make a point in favour of one 
>> kind of governance structure over another.
>>
>> I for instance am happy with the existing CIR governance system if it 
>> is put in an appropriate relationship with a rules based and arms- 
>> length political oversight system, which is globally democratic, in 
>> being representative -political.  On the other hand, I cannot see how 
>> issues of e-commerce can be decided by any system other than which is 
>> directly political -democratic- representative . The requirements of 
>> decision- making about global e-commerce are very different from 
>> those of say numbers allocation.
>
> For e-commerce there are a mix of governance mechanisms at the various 
> non-national levels, i.e. regional, transnational, pluriliateral, 
> multilateral.  Some are strictly intergovernmental like the WTO, 
> UNCITRAL or UNIDROIT; some are intergovernmental with some bounded 
> forms of stakeholder participation like OECD and the EC;

Bill

I see no contradiction between what you say and my statements.  Yes, 
these above are all inter gov decision making systems, because they deal 
with core economic-social-political aspects of e-commerce. The rest 
below that you mention deal with the more technical aspects of e-com, 
and can appropriately have expertise based structures. We indeed agree 
here.


> some are multistakeholder like OASIS; some are purely industry like 
> GS1/EPCglobal, EDIFICE, etc etc.  It’s a mix, depending on the the 
> issues/functions involved and how broadly/narrowly you want to 
> construe "e-commerce.”  My point was that a lot of the detailed 
> operational stuff on standards, authentication, and contracting etc., 
> especially for B2B, is nongovernmental, and a priori it’s not obvious 
> exactly where that could or should change.


Agree. As I said in my email, I dont think it is necessary to change 
governance structures related to technical and operational issues even 
if they are of multistakeholder or private sector kind. These may be the 
most appropriate ones for the subject under consideration. I only said 
that:

(1) For those Internet related public policy issues that are of a core 
social-political nature we need inter gov systems with appropriate 
stakeholder consultative participation (as in OECD/ EC that you refer to 
above).

And

(2) For technical/ operational decision making, any conflict  or 
interface with issues of public policy nature will require special 
rules-based arms-length political oversight systems of some kind.

The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or not.

parminder




>
> Best
>
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/7e218e10/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