[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] A Framework Convention for the Internet?

[Vittorio Bertola]

Multiple replies...

Nnenna:
> Many countries will call the National Security and Defence issue into
> question.  Others will bring in issues like sovreignty, economic
> development, trade and commerce, cultural heritage etc ...
>  
> This means most of the issues will actually end up as national and
> regional.

I am not sure whether that would be such a bad result: I think that the
world is simply too complex to be managed uniformly and effectively at
the global level. Also, the more you move power to the global level, the
less weaker stakeholders (including developing countries, NGOs, and
eventually individual citizens) will count. So I would see a high level
of subsidiariety as a strong insurance for global democracy.

Also, local battles have to be won locally - you can't expect someone
from the outside to come and change your situation, because how can you
ensure that the change will be for the better?

This said, this must not mean that there are no coordinated actions or
global campaigns! And I agree with you that basic civil rights should be
enforced by the global community.

John Mathiason:
> Let me jump in on this.  As international law has developed over the 
> last four centuries, conventions (which are multilateral treaties) have 
> to be agreed between States.  However, States could clearly agree 
> legally to provide for a Multi-Stakeholder approach.  (There are ample 
> precedents, including the provisions in the United Nations Charter for 
> participation of NGOs in the work of the Economic and Social Council).

To add on this, I think it was Desai who noted that, after seeking legal
advice, the UN concluded that those provisions cannot in any way be
interpreted as an indication that the same participation should not be
allowed in other parts of the UN processes.

Avri Doria:
> ps. can anyone point me to a good focused write-up of the 
> multi-stakeholder approach.  i have certainly read about it in several
> papers and have seen it assumed, but don't have a good reference on
> the principles, theories and thoughts behind the approach itself.  i
> am sure some of the scholars among us have already created the right 
> document, i just don't know which of the multitude of documents it is 
> in. since it seems so central to CS participation, i feel i need to 
> gather a deep understanding of the concept.

"Hey! The king is naked!"

No, seriously - it is such a young concept that I don't think there is
an agreed theorization... and you're right that we need one. 

I would mention moving from democracy based on representation to
democracy based on participation. Also, I think that the WSIS Civil
Society structures, as well as, for example, the Civil Society
constituencies in ICANN, are examples of global participatory models for
CS. But all of this is an experiment!
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...