Process/Function 1 : Forum function
1. Is there need for an additional arrangement or body?
Our answer is Yes, but... There is definitely a need for an additional arrangement. But the need for an additional "body" is more debatable and needs to be approached carefully.
We see an immediate need for the negotiation of a framework convention that gets agreement among governments, private sector and civil society around basic principles and norms regarding Internet governance. We also see an immediate need for the creation of a new arrangement to provide accountability for ICANN and to internationalize oversight of the root zone file.
Neither of those advances requires an additional "body?" if by that you mean the creation of a new international organization or some kind of supra-international organization to "steer" Internet governance arrangements across organizations. However, the negotiation and implementation of a framework convention may require the creation of a secretariat and it is possible that the outcome of a framework agreement negotiation would call for some kind of new body to supervise and monitor aspects of the agreement. (e.g., some specific procedures for agreeing on modification of the root zone file).
What we don't like is the idea that some new body would be created with a very broad and poorly defined scope and mission prior to the negotiation of agreed principles and norms. Such a body might serve as a standing invitation for inter-organizational and inter-governmental power struggles, or ongoing, random political agitation for centralized intervention in or control of society's vast and diverse Internetworking processes. Creating a new body without first agreeing on principles and norms reversesthe correct process.
A new body must be based on internationally agreed principles and norms regarding the Internet, and given carefully defined and delimited powers related to those agreements. New negotiations and arrangements should attach as much priority to identifying areas where governments should not interfere, or where initiative should be left to private sector and civil society, as to areas where action is needed.
If the answer to question 1 is yes:
2. What functions should it exercise?
(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum? See below
(b) Give policy direction? See below
(c) Any other function? See below
(d) Be a combination of the above? See below
The most important function of a new arrangement would be to provide policy direction. That is, it would be based on the premise that the Internet is a predominantly global communication medium that supports an increasingly transnational civil society and private sector, and therefore territorial governments with differing policies and laws need internationally agreed principles and norms to guide their action.
A multi-stakeholder forum is desirable, but it is unlikely to succeed unless it is connected fairly closely to some kind of authoritative recommendation, policy making or decision making process. People will not invest the time and resources needed to participate unless they believe their discussion will have some effect. And there are plenty of existing forums on which to spend their time: ICANN, Global Knowledge Partnership, standards organizations, etc.
3. What kind of public policy issues should it address?
(a) All issues related to the Internet?
(b) Only issues outside the scope of existing organizations and institutions?
New arrangements need to address all global issues related to Internet governance. The only justification for a new arrangement is that the patchwork of current arrangements overlooks certain problems, and/or addresses them in conflicting or inconsistent ways, or handles them improperly because of the uneven ways different constituencies are represented in different International Organizations (IOs). Therefore, (a) is the obvious answer. Any attempt to confine the scope of IG to specific areas is bound to fail. The (b) option will only serve as a rationalization for the status quo, leading to fruitless debates about what issues really are inside or outside the scope of existing organizations. For example, one might say that "spam" is a new issue outside the scope of any organization, but its regulation overlaps significantly with issues of free expression, technical standards, and fraud, all of which are within the scope of existing organizations and institutions (e.g., UNESCO, IETF, Cybercrime Convention). As another example, one might say that "intellectual property" is within the scope of WIPO, but Internet governance issues related to IPR are already addressed by ICANN (domain name trademark conflicts and WHOIS), technical standardization organizations (software patents), trade organizations (WTO/TRIPS) and so on. It is absurd to think that the interdependent issues raised by IG can be neatly sorted into the pigeonholes of existing IOs. From the first years of the Internet's emergence as a mass public medium, there has been friction among existing international organizations (ITU, WIPO, WTO, and later ICANN) regarding responsibility for the issues.
4. Where should it be anchored (to what institution should it be linked)?
Any new entity should be anchored in a framework convention. The framework convention should articulate baseline principles and norms, and identify the mechanisms for realizing them.
5. How should it be financed?
This is one of the toughest issues you face, and we have no clear answers, partly because it depends on what emerges from the convention. A framework convention process should probably be funded in the normal way others have been funded, albeit strong provisions for the support of civil society consultation and participation should be included. Keep in mind that whoever pays will hold great influence over the procedures and substance of policy. Beyond that, we would call attention to the differences between two major forms of funding: self-funding through fees and "tax" funding through (voluntarily accepted) levies on national governments. The first option is more efficient but more dangerous. ICANN and WIPO, for example, are highly powerful and autonomous because they are in a position to charge for services (e.g., patent registration) or impose inescapable fees on stakeholders (ICANN's per-domain fees or RIR address fees). National state levies are more accountable and reversible but much slower and more constrained, and more likely to lapse into static bureaucracies that accomplish little. It is probably premature to discuss funding until there is agreement on what should be created and what it should do.
6. How should it be structured?
Looking for discussion of this.
7. What would be its relationship with existing organizations and institutions?
On matters related to the Internet, a framework convention on the Internet would supersede existing organizations and institutions, and direct or modify some of their activities. However, in some cases the parties to the convention might agree that it is better to work with existing organizations to achieve the new policies.
haha...It is so useful imformation for us to read...gogo..
Posted by: christian louboutin | October 28, 2010 at 06:04 PM