NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:47:50 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (6 kB) , text/html (12 kB)
Milton,

Thanks for the comment. It contributes to a historical perspective here. 
I would like to add two observations.

  * First, I agree completely that there is "/...certain naivety about
    the treatment of states as “stakeholders”.../", a naivety that
    underestimates the power that states might exercise with regard to
    Internet Governance in other multilateral settings.
  * The second observation is that whatever happens in the short term
    with regard to the (maybe) transition of IANA oversight, the
    multistakeholder model is a bit like a frog in a food blender. It is
    going to have to swim like heck to stay afloat and not be sliced and
    diced by the spinning blades of government and commercial interests.

Sam L.

On 9/22/2016 10:53 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Sam
>
> I’ve written a lot of scholarly papers about just that topic.
>
> Here is an excerpt:
>
> “A political tension between the transnational, private sector-led 
> organizations/governance mechanisms characteristic of the Internet and 
> the sovereignty-based governance of national and intergovernmental 
> institutions has been a recurring feature of the evolution of Internet 
> governance. Multi-stakeholder entities are IOs that serve as a bridge 
> between these two worlds. Multi-stakeholderism inserts representatives 
> of civil society and the private sector into intergovernmental 
> proceedings, more or less as peers. The UN Internet Governance Forum 
> (IGF) is the main multistakeholder organization. It was expressly 
> created by the World Summit on the Information Society to serve such a 
> bridging function. The IGF itself sits in a sometimes uncomfortable 
> place between the two worlds. It is part of the UN system but must 
> raise its own money as it is not guaranteed funds from the general 
> budget like a UN bureau would be. The IGF runs an open annual meeting 
> that typically attracts about 2,000 people, where the problems of 
> Internet governance are discussed in a nonbinding dialogue. The 
> program of the IGF is established by a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory 
> Group which contains representatives from governments, business, and 
> civil society. Since the first meeting of the IGF in 2006, regional 
> and national IGFs have proliferated which reproduce this pattern locally.
>
> Some writers use a broader definition of multi-stakeholder; they would 
> categorize ICANN and the RIRs, for example, as multi-stakeholder 
> institutions or as exemplars of “the multi-stakeholder model.” But it 
> is important to remember that the label “multi-stakeholder” was only 
> applied to ICANN and the RIRs retroactively, in the wake of the 
> battles over Internet governance during the World Summit on the 
> Information Society (WSIS). And the concept does not apply to the IETF 
> at all, because it is based entirely on individual participation not 
> on classes of “stakeholders.” In fact, the term “multi-stakeholder” 
> was applied to the organically developed Internet institutions after 
> the WSIS debates only as a kind of political ploy: to leverage the 
> rhetoric of broader inclusion and representation that civil society 
> activists had brought into the UN system during WSIS and make the 
> Internet institutions more palatable to states and the UN system. The 
> fact remains, however, that the original Internet institutions were 
> private sector-led forms of self-governance that in some ways were 
> intended to exclude or avoid governments. The White Paper that 
> established the basis for the ICANN regime, for example, described it 
> as a ‘privatization’ of the DNS. Only /after/ governments asserted 
> themselves in the WSIS process was the term ‘multi-stakeholder’ 
> applied to ICANN, the RIRs, and IETF. The tendency now is to consider 
> governments as “stakeholders” on a par with private sector and civil 
> society organizations. Governmental participation as peers, however, 
> almost never works because of their inherently bureaucratic and 
> hierarchical structure, and their ability to overrule or even repress 
> other stakeholder groups. While in some sense states are also network 
> operators and users and thus share many concerns with other 
> stakeholders, there is a certain naivety about the treatment of states 
> as “stakeholders” when the pre-existing political and governance 
> system is built around the notion of states as sovereign 
> decision-makers who are above specific stakeholder groups.
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Sam Lanfranco
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:39 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: IANA
>
> This is a question for one of us with a longer history with ICANN than 
> I have.
>
> I have noticed that the language used to discuss the history leading 
> up to the transition of IANA oversight the wording does not
> refer to ICANN as a not-for-profit multistakeholder organization but 
> instead uses variations on the term "private and international".
> Most recently this appears in Wolfgang's piece in circleid.com where 
> he writes:
>
> "...the privatization and internationalization of the management of 
> Internet core resources."
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160921_breaking_nonsense_ted_cruz_iana_transition_and_irony_of_life/
>
> I assume there is some history to using the words "private" and 
> "international" rather than "not-for-profit" and "multistakeholder".
> Can someone shed some light on this?
>
>
> Sam L.
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
  邦有道,贫且贱焉,耻也。邦无道,富且贵焉,耻也
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852



ATOM RSS1 RSS2