NPOC-I-Engage Institute Excerpt:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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.