Dear Friends
Greetings and Thanks for this very interesting discussion. NPOC is since
quite some time discussing the issues that are underlying these recent
developments and discussion and we have developed some strategy and
concept papers. I want to make one part of these papers available here
because I think it might help to point out some direction forward.
If you have any questions or interested to receive the full papers,
please let me know.
Yours, in the hope that the below is hopeful
Klaus
NPOC-I-Engage Institute Excerpt:
2.1 Internet Governance basic characteristics
The Internet today concerns and affects everybody, everywhere, connected
or not! How the Internet is run and governed is a topic as significant
as the environment, human rights and peace. Today’s Internet Governance
has to struggle with three basic characteristics:
1.
Public commons versus ownership
The character of the Internet as a shared human commons is unique. On
the one hand it is a shared environment; on the other hand it is based
on a physical infrastructure and has limited resources those have owners
with their specific investments and interests.
2.
Sovereignty versus the geography of cyberspace
The Internet Ecosystem, by its very nature, does not care too much about
physical boundaries. This is the fundamental reason why countries, whose
authority is based on territory and the concept of sovereignty, struggle
to find their place in a digital world. The uncontrolled free flow of
data, together with the ongoing speed of innovation, seems to be
irreconcilable with the concepts of national territory and sovereign
rights. But we are all undeniably citizens of both spaces. We exercise
our citizenship both online and off-line and we should find solutions to
make the best use of it in these two dimensions.
c. New forms of sovereignty and governance
Similar to nation states, many of those organizations and individuals
involved in the Internet Ecosystem and its governance, commonly known as
the stakeholders, claim “sole-sovereignty” or self-proclaimed
sovereignty over specific issues, roles and functions. The stability and
security of the DNS, telecommunication standards, security and human
rights, to name just some, are well defined “subject-territories” in the
Internet Ecosystem.
The digital world of today requires a new understanding of sovereignty.
Sovereignty in the context of Internet Governance needs to be based on
the ability of a stakeholder or a group of stakeholders to:
*
…have specific expertise that is relevant to the Internet Ecosystem
*
…to be inclusive, i.e. to have the ability to take into account the
needs, interests and abilities of all the other stakeholders in the
policy making process.
*
…to be transparent and accountable to the point of obsessivnes.
*
…to have the ability to manage the decision-making processes and
implementation processes in a timely and effective way.
The emergence of the Internet necessitates its stakeholders to create
new innovative ways to exercise their joint governance responsibility.
Tried and tested governance models based on traditional state-
sovereignty are strongly challenged in a world of digital territories.
Additionally, new governance models need to be able to bridge the needs
and realities of the physical world with those of the digital world are
required. Tensions are rising as both spheres evolve. The basic choice
the stakeholders have to make is whether they use this tension as an
opportunity to reshape their role and responsibilities, or not. The
moment one sphere claims dominance and sovereignty over another, this
tension becomes destructive, whereas it can be a constructive force if
it is used as the driving force for innovation and development.
2.2 Knowledge and Awareness: Bridging the gap between territorial
and digital sovereignty
Nobody should interfere in the specific sovereignty and governance of
nation states. Equally it is the sole role, responsibility and privilege
of all Internet Ecosystem stakeholders to exercise their sovereignty. So
how can the gap between the two understandings and practices of
sovereignty be bridged?
Both spheres have in common that they sustain and develop themselves,
based on a mechanism that acquires, processes and translates new
knowledge and ideas from inside and outside their own sphere into
decision making and actions. This, combined with the ability to
synthesize and integrate different point of views from a standpoint of
shared and interconnected rights and responsibilities, is the mechanism
that drives sustainability and development. Any sphere that is unable,
or only partially able to do so, is failing.
The gap between territorial and digital sovereignty can be bridged and
turned into a constructive force when:
*
both spheres recognize that their development is interdependent;
*
suitable instruments for awareness-building, knowledge exchange and
processing become available for both spheres.
Development can only take place if it is based on knowledge that is
available to everybody in appropriate forms, and not just to a
self-elected elite. Both spheres have their own governance structures
and there are attempts to create joint governance structures, but they
can only be legitimate and successful if they put the awareness building
and empowerment of their citizens and that of the citizens in other
spheres, at the center of their thinking and doing. Joint governance
structures should be citizen-centric.
We also have to recognize that neither nation states, nor the Internet
ecosystem stakeholders, are limitless in their abilities to do so, even
if they have a strong desire and need. Their abilities are limited by,
and directly proportionate to, the availability and nature of the
instruments they have available. Therefore, the immediate goal has to be
to create suitable instruments and tools that:
*
build awareness and empower the citizens of both spheres;
*
acquire, process and translate new knowledge and ideas into decision
making processes and actions;
*
enable innovation.
The establishment and productive integration of knowledge throughout
nations and digital societies also serves to turn the tension between
public commons versus ownership of digital infrastructure, (see above),
into a constructive force. A society that is knowledgeable about the
digital world it lives in and that has learned to integrate this
knowledge in such a way that it results in prosperous and fair
development for all, will also be able to take informed decisions about
which part of the digital world will require public common ownership and
regulation and which parts should be subject to unlimited innovation.
Informed and enabled digital societies in return will financially reward
those who create digital infrastructure that contributes to a society’s
development.
2.3 A new instrument
What is really needed is the creation of an instrument that allows the
two spheres to meet and act together without questioning their
respective sovereignty, an instrument that provides a common ground
designed to strengthen the specific expertise, inclusiveness,
transparency and effectiveness of the individual stakeholders. The
instrument needs to be complimentary to the existing governance
structures but not part of it. In order to be able to function as a
complimentary support system for the Internet Ecosystem and an improved
governance, the instrument should fulfill the following criteria.
*
Open to all Internet Ecosystem and all its Stakeholders;
*
Fully transparent in all its activities;Supports pre-existing
policy-making processes but should strictly not engage in policy
making itself;
*
Respects both expressions of sovereignty and not being part of one
or another;
*
provide the Internet Ecosystem stakeholders with a strong sense of
ownership and with a sense that their own interests are served;
*
Fully dedicated to create Internet Ecosystems stakeholders dialogue
and exchange;
*
Being a Think Tank for collaboration and action. It should provide a
joint workspace for Internet Ecosystem stakeholders. The instrument
needs to be a platform for the development and implementation based
on joint activities and projects that serve the interests of the
stakeholders;
*
Equally serves as a learning platform for stakeholders to understand
and collaborate with other stakeholders;
*
Provides a space for impartial cross-cutting research.
> 3.
>
>
> The I-Engage Institute
>
> In order to create this vital and necessary support instrument for
> Internet Governance, we propose the creation of the I-Engage Institute.
>
>
> 3.1 I-Engage Institute Mission and Vision
>
> *
>
> Mission: To help bridge the gap between territorial and digital
> sovereignty.
>
> *
>
> Vision: To be an activity-based platform meant to support the
> stakeholders of the Internet Ecosystem, its governing processes
> and institutions.
>
>
> 3.2 I-Engage Institute role and activities
>
> The I-Engage Institute fulfills his mission and vision as a think tank
> for all of the Internet Ecosystem through the following activities:
>
> *
>
> Providing a platform for all Internet Ecosystem stakeholders to
> engage in multi-stakeholder dialogue and exchange that is based on
> the implementation of joint activities of common interest to all
> participants;
>
> *
>
> Doing outreach and awareness building specifically targeting the
> biggest Internet stakeholder group of them all -the global general
> public -, to address relevant issues related to the Internet
> Ecosystem and its governance;
>
> *
>
> Providing a space for impartial cross cutting research;
>
> *
>
> Supporting the economic development and sustainability of the
> Internet Ecosystem and the DNS (Domain Name System), this
> underlies it.
>
>
> 3.3 What makes the I-Engage Institute different?
>
> The Institute is different from existing IG-related institutions as:
>
> *
>
> It is created, governed and maintained by the Internet Ecosystem
> Stakeholders themselves;
>
> *
>
> It is independent and bridges the gap between territorial and
> digital sovereignty and is therefore a vital instrument to support
> the Internet Government processes and institutions;
>
> *
>
> Its operations and impact is based on concrete joint action of the
> stakeholders and not only on dialogue;
>
> *
>
> It recognizes and addresses the need for awareness-building and
> the inclusion of the global general public on all
> topics/aspects/issues related to the Internet Ecosystem and its
> governance as the foundation for its stability, security and
> overall sustainability.
>
>
>
|
