[governance] BRICS

Mon Jul 13 14:36:50 EDT 2015

Dear Wolfgang,

i like it very much to read your texts. But i know, never i would found 
a positive perspective. Your perspective.  Maybe in the context of InterNet.

In the Sao paulo declaration from NMI i feel the same. Also in the Ufa 
declaration from the BRICS group and her friends.

But your example with the rainforest is realy fantastic. We never can 
manage this. But gtoups can destroy it. And wnat to destroy it. The same 
we have it with the Internet. Mostly all governments want to destroy it. 
The self orgnisation of our trnsportsystem for free communication is a 
great danger. We can show, that we do not need the representative 
systems. We can show and learn, that we can do it self. In our local and 
regional communities.

And the recognition and realization of those we find in all this 
unilateral and multilateral declarations. Alsi in the documents of 
Cgi.br and Netmundial.

The job is, to rearrange the requirements for representative systems, 
the Internet Governance.

many greetings, willi
Fortaleza, Brasil

Am 13/07/2015 um 11:26 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> Keith:
> Does this means the ICANN "breakthroughs" of having Brazil and India pledging allegiance to multistakeholderism is now meaningless, as the heads of state of BRICS have reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism?
>
> Good question Keith,
>
> my understanding was always that the "multilateralists" vs."multistakeholderists" battle is a purely ideological battle and does not match the reality.
>
> The reality is that the intergovernmental treaty system (which is based on the Vienne Convention of the Law of Treaties) will not disappear the next 100 years. And we will have also in the Internet world multilateral treaties where governments agree among themselvs (in a legally binding form) about rights, duties and responsibilities. Take the Budapest Cybercrime Convention which is ratfied by states which support the multistakeholder approach (and which is not ratified by governments which support the multilateral approach).
>
> But on top of legally binding hard law treaties there will be more and more soft law instruments or other arrangements. In many areas where we have global problems, governments are and will be unable to agree. States/government have different ideas, interests and objectives and do not want to agree if it comes to issues where they see national interests and national sovereignty at stake. But the system of international relations is much broader and more complex then bi- or multilateral legally binding relationships among governments.
>
> Insofar the  multistakeholder approach allows to find more flexible arrangements which can produce even more stability than legally binding treaties (which can be also ignored when governments change their mind or the circumstances are changing/ clausular rebus sic stantibus) because such multistakeholder arrangements pull non-governmental stakeholders into a mechanism where those groups from the private sector, the technical community or even civil society take committments to themselves to follow certain principles, norms or programms (as described in the WGIG Definition).
>
> Such an approach does not exclude intergovernmental arrangements. They are and will continue to be a part of the broader picture. The language I use is that today "the multilateral system is "embedded" into a multistakeholder environment". So it is not "either-or". You can have both. This are two different layers. And BTW, the Indian minister in BA used the language "multistakeholder and multilayer" mechanism which is correct in my eyes.
>
> With regard to the BRICS: There is the draft convention by the Shanghai Group in the 1st Committee of the UNGA. I expect that it is rather unrealistic that this draft gets universal acceptance. Some elements are reflected now in the new report of the Group of Governmental Experts, which will be published early August and discussed by the UNGA in October. The Ufa Declaration tries to keep the door open. India, Brazil, even China can continue with a "double strategy". But this is part of the political cat and mouse game. The "Ufa Declaration" does not mention anymore a "regional cybersecurity treaty" (as it was considered by some Russian experts). The member states of the African Union have negotiated a regional cybersecurity treaty. So one scenario could be to have three (or four or five) regional multilateral cybersecurity treaties. This is probably gone. A good move. The reality is that we probably will continue with a situation where the 50+ member states of the Budapest!
  Convent
ion invite the non-member states to sign and ratify the Budapest Convention and the other governments (including the BRICS countries) propose to have a new convention under the auspices of the UN. Difficult to make any forcast how this will be played out.
>
>
> Here is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote to the issue:
>
> "An important role will play how the numerous involved governmental and non-governmental actors understand the nature of the complexity of the Internet Governance Eco-System. Already the terminology "Internet Governance Eco-System" signals that the Internet is not just "another policy issue" which — after the revelations of Edward Snowden — has been pushed now for policy decision makers from "low priority" to "high priority". The problem is much more complex.
>
> The Internet is not a "single issue" which needs to be regulated in one way or another. The Internet, as it has evolved over half of a century, has penetrated all areas of the political, economic, cultural and social life around the globe. It constitutes more and more the environment in which individuals and institutions do live and learn, do their business, buy and sell, make love and fun and have all kind of individual or collective activities. The Internet Governance Eco-System constitutes to a high degree the virtual environment of the 21st century. Life without the Internet is meanwhile unthinkable for the young generation which are the decision makers of tomorrow. From the 20th century we know about the consequences of the pollution of our natural environment. The lesson learned from those disasters is that we should be very careful with all kinds of pollutions and keep our real and virtual environment as healthy as possible.
>
> The Internet Governance Eco-System can be compared a little bit to the rainforest. In the rainforest an uncountable number of diverse plants and animals live together in a very complex system. In the "virtual rainforest" we have also an endless and growing diversity of networks, services, applications, regimes and other properties which co-exist in a mutual interdependent mechanism of communication, coordination and collaboration. One thing which can be learnt is that the rainforest as a whole is not managable. It can be neither governed nor controlled, but it can be damaged and destroyed. In the Internet Governance Eco-System many players with very different legal status operate on many different layers, on local, national, regional and international levels, driven by technical innovation, user needs, market opportunities and political interests.
> Good Question Keith,
>
>
> As a result we see a very dynamic process where — from a political-legal perspective — a broad variety of different regulatory, co-regulatory or self-regulatory regimes emerge, co-exist and complement or conflict each other. The system as a whole is decentralized, diversified and has no central authority. However, within the various subsystems there is an incredible broad variety of different sub-mechanisms which range from hierarchical structures under single or inter-governmental control to non-hierarchical networks based on self-regulatory mechanisms by non-governmental groups with a wide range of co-regulatory arrangements in between where affected and concerned stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and technical community are working hand in hand.
>
> There is no "one size fits all" solution. The specific form of each sub-system has to be designed according to the very specific needs and nature of the individual issue. In such a mechanism, traditional national legislation and intergovernmental agreements continue to play a role but have to be embedded into the broader multistakeholder environment while new emerging mechanisms have to take note and recognize existing frameworks and regulations on various levels. The "do-not-harm" principle becomes more important than ever. It means that whatever a governmental or non-governmental player will do in the Internet has to take into consideration its direct or indirect consequences for not involved third parties as well as the unintended side-effects for the system as a whole.
>
> Such a competitive coexistence of rather different regimes and mechanisms creates opportunities but has also risks. There are incredible opportunities for new mechanisms, platforms and services to bring more dynamic into political strategies, social actions and market developments. This competitive coexistence can stimulate innovation, promote job creation, enlarge all kinds of cultural activities and broaden the use of individual freedoms by the public at large both in developed and developing nations. But there is also a risk that differences between regimes and systems create controversies and produce heavy conflicts which includes the threat to turn down innovation, hamper sustainable development, to reduce individual freedoms and to pollute the Internet Governance Eco-System in a way that parts of it will be damaged or destroyed.
>
> The challenge is to find flexible mechanisms for enhanced communication, coordination as well as formal and informal collaboration among the various players at the different layers to allow that all stakeholders can play their respective role on an equal footing without discrimination in an open and transparent mechanism. Among the key principles for such an enhanced cooperation are, inter alia, mutual respect and recognition of the role of other stakeholders, legitimacy, checks and balances in a workable and recognized accountability system, early engagement and others.
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131231_internet_governance_outlook_2014_good_news_bad_news_no_news/
>
> Does this means the ICANN "breakthroughs" of having Brazil and India
> pledging allegiance to multistakeholderism is now meaningless, as the
> heads of state of BRICS have reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism?
>
> Cheers
>
> Keith

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