[governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum

[parminder]

Bill

I see both you and Avri say that some things need inter gov and some MS 
systems, to which I agree. But that brings us to the main point that I 
have been trying to stress; it of course cannot be left to the 
(situational) fancy of people, groups and institutions which issues and 
when should be addressed by one form of governance structure and 
which/when the other. Such a determination obviously must be based on 
some principles , and I have been trying to frame some, admittedly in a 
simple way. We cannot just say that some should be done this way and 
others that - that amounts to venue or forum shopping, a very negative 
feature of any political system, where those who have the most power can 
move between different kinds of forums or forms of governance, as best 
suits them. Which is what happens today in the global IG space. When the 
UN is involved, rich countries say inter gov is bad and this form should 
not be applied to Internet governance, but then they deal similar issues 
in an inter gov manner at forums like OECD and EU/ CoE - and worse, at 
the very opaque plurilateral trade deals.

We need a rules based system, the rules themselves being based on higher 
principles, which of course would be of democracy, to determine what 
kind of global IG architecture is best suited for promoting global 
public interest. However, not much gets spoken about such principles and 
rules which could help us determine different kinds of systems for 
different kind of IG issues - technical to social-political being a key 
spectrum. Most arguments take a stock MS or inter gov view and simply go 
past one another. It is good to explore a more sophisticated larger 
principles based view.

parminder




On Wednesday 04 February 2015 05:08 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Last quick time around for me as I have to pack and go to the airport.
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie> wrote:
>>   
>> A 'binding decision' mean different things, especially in the context of the internet. I did say that I would favour a shift in the direction of decisions by (democratic and genuine) consensus among all stakeholders  - and would include some of the areas for decision that you, Bill, mention.
> Which orgs like ICANN do via contracts after extensive inputs from governments as well as stakeholders.
>> But even intergovernmental organisations have 'binding' decision undermined by the evolution of technology or maneuvering of others.  e.g.  government can agree what they like between them, but wider dynamics can simply sweep that aside (which is not always a bad thing). The history of telecommunications in the last 30 years is a prime example of that (remember accounting rates and all the other and the scramble to the ITU to stay relevant).
> Sure
>> Second 'binding' decisions can also mean decisions by monopoly or oligopolies corporations that in effect dictate that way things are for the vast majority of people (Microsoft, google, facebook etc.).
> Right and in some such cases public policy may be the appropriate response, in others you may be able to get better results through a non-PP governance approach, depends what we’re talking about.
>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:33 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> Which happens from time to time. Scary and disorienting, huh? :-)
>> (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).
> For me, it depends which core social-political issues we’re talking about.  For example, at a general level privacy is obviously one, but some privacy issues like working out rules for WHOIS and its replacement I’d rather see tackled on a multistakeholder basis with government input.  In contrast broader data protection should be the purview of governments with extensive stakeholder input.  I think the optimal geometry of roles and responsibilities is variable and dynamic, which is why a fixed and static formulation per WSIS is problematic.
>>
>> 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.
> Again for me it depends what we’re talking about.  In ICANN I think the GAC has quite enough influence now and often uses it poorly, so I wouldn’t want to see it grown out to some more unilateral form of command and control.
>> The question is whether you agree with these two propositions or not.
> And the answer is, it depends (sorry).
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150204/c2044a20/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