[WSIS CS-Plenary] Framework Convention Risks

[Milton Mueller]

On 22 dec 2004, at 11.43, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> So you are correct to say that a framework convention poses
>> risks. And it is important to identify those risks.
>
>>> <avri at acm.org> 12/22/2004 1:10:21 PM >>>
>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.

A discussion of risks of a framework convention (FC) makes a lot more
sense if there are alternative strategies that  it can be compared to.
That's why I pushed you by saying: "ANY concrete proposal for
formalizing and
institutionalizing new arrangements poses risks." What you really meant
to ask, then, is what are the risks specific to this proposal, and how
do they compare to other strategies available to us? I cannot answer the
second part of the question, because there seem to be no alternatives on
the table. As for the first part:

Possible Risk 1: 
A FC would become primarily a state-directed effort, excluding CS or
diminishing its role.

Risk analysis: 
I am not too worried about this one. All of the rhetoric and actions
and institutional rrealities surrounding Internet governance give civil
society a major role. Also, consider the precedent of the Climate Change
Convention: CS played a huge role in both shaping and implementing the
UNFCCC. 

Possible Risk 2:
A FC's substantive content could become captured or dominated by states
concerned exclusively with asserting more control over the Internet
(security, terrorism, intellectual property) and not with protecting
Internet FROM states, protecting individual rights, preserving the
Internet's openness and flexibility, legitimizing civil society's
autonomous role in it, recognizing Internet self-governance and
flexibility, etc.) 

Risk analysis:
I view this as a much more serious threat. But it is also a threat
_now_, with or without a FC, because all kinds of shadow governance is
taking place piecemeal in localized regimes such as WIPO, ICANN, Council
of Europe Cybercrime, etc. The unique aspect of WGIG/WSIS is its ability
to take a holistic view that looks over all regimes. That is why it is
preferable to see a FC effort emerge from WSIS/WGIG. A holistic approach
that includes substantial civil society and private sector input, and
which balances US and OECD perspectives with those of developing
countries, seems to me to be more likely to arrive at a balanced
resolution of the many conflicts. 

I would like to follow up on Nnenna's discussion of the potential
quagmire of subsidiarity, but I have not concluded a firm position on
that yet. I am still thinking about it.

I am sure there are more risks that could be thought of, but that's a
start. 

--MM