[discuss] Time to be more precise about Internet Governance

Mon Dec 30 10:10:22 UTC 2013

Hi Greg

On Dec 30, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:

> This seems to be an attempt to give governments a small slice of The Concept Formerly Known As Internet Governance (TCFKAIG) to muck with, while making everything else seem as mundane and "administrative" as possible.
> 
> It's a neat trick, but I don't think it works. For instance, I don't think you could convince anyone involved in ICANN's New gTLD process that this was merely "administrative" and didn't involve any "Internet Governance."  The stakeholders will all still want seats at the table, whether the topic is IG (whatever the I stands for) or mere "coordination." 

Thanks for the acronym (although I think it should be paired with TCStillKAIG), and for an opportunity for IPC and NCUC types to find agreement, proof that 1net works…:-)

Three related points.  First, coordination is not some magic word that makes everything apolitical, cooly efficient and technocratic, and therefore to be undertaken only by a those “in the know” with governments and other ruffians locked out of the room.  Per previous, coordination is simply one of a range of collective action forms, in which the organization and ranking of payoff/incentives per participant are different from what you have in other forms (the classic game theory example is ‘battle of the sexes’ vs. ‘prisoner’s dilemma’).  Coordination games often yield more positive outcomes than say collaboration games, but not always, as sometimes they have significant distributional costs/effects across players.  Technical standards are a classic case; in principle, everyone may be better off with a shared standard than multiple or no standards.  But there can also be coordination with asymmetric distributional benefits, which gums up the happy story.  If say a powerful player have a particular standard it's pushing that would give it greater benefits of some sort (even just reputational), that standard may be selected even if it provides an operationally inferior solution in some respects to available alternatives.  Many observers believe this has been a recurrent problem in telecoms, televisions, etc.  So my suggestion would be to resist framing “coordination” as a unique object of idolatry and ideology.  It’s a crucially important part of the mix, but there is a mix.

Second, coordination is purposive.  Actors don’t usually engage in it solely for pleasure (although there may be such sociological payoffs endogenous to the process; when ITU-T delegates trot off to two week meeting about technical standards they know will never be implemented, one does have to wonder whether it’s more to see old friends, dine at the Hotel de Bergues, and shop on the rue de Marche). Normally there it is goal directed, intended to agree an outcome, e.g. a standard or practice, that it is hoped will bound actors' expectations and shape their behaviors going forward.  That is social steering, or governance.  Trying to separate Internet coordination and Internet governance is ideological and chimeric, and there are reasons nobody but the TC bought this line during the extended WSIS negotiations despite repeated sales efforts from some in the TC.

Third, “administration” takes the gambit even further.  It implies that the decisions have already been reach, everyone’s on board, and we’re merely implementing an agreed framework—all very cool, rationale, perhaps even to be performed by robots.  That may indeed happen with some issues, but whether it is the generalizable norm is quite another matter.  As you know, ICANN’s been at war with itself for years over the fuzzy boundary line between policy and implementation.  And in any event, implementation is not separate from the concept of governance as agreed in WGIG and the TA (or indeed in the broader scholarly and policy literatures, and on the ground usages).  The relevant bit of the WGIG def is “The development and application (i.e. implementation) of share principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes (i.e. administration) that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.

Hmmm..maybe I should blog too, but not here in a beachfront cafe in Nice….next year.

Cheers

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131230/885e5545/attachment.html>