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

[avri at acm.org]

On 22 dec 2004, at 11.43, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Global coordination, negotiation and governance is very complex. There
> is no strategy whatsoever that can "insure that the right outcome" 
> would
> ensue.
> Indeed, there is no strategy that can guarantee ANY specific
> outcome -

Indeed i was not looking for simplcity, perfection or for real 
insurance.  What concerens me thus far is that i see many questions.

> So you are correct to say that a framework convention poses
> risks. And it is important to identify those risks.

that is part of what I was attempting to get a conversation started on. 
  What are the risks and what are the ways to minimize them.  Before 
accepting any strategy, a risk analysis is necessary.

I was also trying to understand some of the necessary preconditions for 
your strategy to work.

>
> However, you must agree that ANY concrete proposal for formalizing and
> institutionalizing new arrangements poses risks.

So far, agreed. (though I admit someone telling me I must agree always 
gives me pause)

> Can you tell me what
> strategy will not leave many questions open?

Don't know.  I figure that various suggestions will be made, I will 
ready them, and then I will explore the preconditions and the risks.  
And when I don't clearly understand something I will pose the questions 
hoping the authors of the strategy, or others who understand it better 
then me, have the answers.

> Can you suggest a way
> forward that poses fewer risks with the same potential gains than a
> framework convention? What would it be?

I don't know, I am still exploring the possibilities.  And was trying 
to understand why this strategy is one that should be pushed forward.  
I have not seem a clear risk/benefit discussion yet.

>
> Surely, talking among ourselves about how an ideal world would look is
> safer, but accomplishes little in the long term. Sooner or later the
> talk has to be translated into institutions, rules and procedures.

I must of missed when I was talking about the ideal world.  Please 
assume that nothing I have written or will ever write presupposes the 
existence of an ideal world.

>
> In other words if you are saying, "don't engage states and try to get
> formal agreements to engage civil society because we might not get from
> the states what we want" I will respond: OK, but the only way to avoid
> failing is to avoid any attempt to change anything.

Don't know when I said that.
But then again you made it a rhetorical conditional, so what i can say?

Obviously I think we need to engage states.  But I think we need to 
understand what we are engaging them over, and indeed we need to know 
who we are.

>
> By making a concrete proposal like this, we are trying to advance the
> dialogue. The time is ripe for discussion of new institutional
> measures.
>

Yep.  And I believe  that is why I was asking concrete questions.  I 
thought I was participating in dialogue.

If we are going to suggest new institutional measures, we better 
understand them and their implications.  Once we engage states, the 
questions will be far more pointed and if we haven't anticipated as 
many questions as possible, the proposal will have less chance of 
flying.  So if it a good proposal, and especially if it is The 
Proposal, then we need to delve into it very deeply.

Perhaps I am slower then everyone else to come to understanding, and if 
so, I beg your indulgence in helping me understand.


a.