[discuss] ICANN policy and "Internet Governance"

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 5 Jan 2014, at 11:34 pm, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Short answer: if you are completely happy with the status quo, then there is no reason for a new body or forum.  But if you don't think that Internet-related public policies are currently developed in a way that gives voice to all those affected by those policies, then there is.
> 
> Short question: How does the conclusion follow? 
> 
> As an example: I am, personally, not "completely happy with the status quo". ... I'm also willing to stipulate that "Internet-related public policies" being "developed in a way that gives voice to all those affected by those policies" is a) intrinsically good and b) something that can be operationalized in the real world.
> 
> Where some of us get confused is on what can then be done with that aspiration.
> 
> As a null hypothesis: maybe we're actually doing as well as we could; no system is going to be perfect in "giv[ing] voice to all those affected by those policies," even if that were both necessary and sufficient.

Great that you're with me so far!  And I agree that your question is fair and pertinent.

> So the prescription is that "we also need to further democratise international public policy making", outside of "the existing international system of states," as a principle. Is it also the case, in your view, that nothing *else* is needed-- that more representation and democracy will cure the deficits you see in the current mechanisms and lead to identifiably better outcomes for Internet users?

Not quite.  That would makes the process legitimate.  It also has to be effective.  But that's more of an engineering problem, which comes second.

>> Less theoretically, we can point to particular processes that affect Internet users, but are deficient in terms of process because they do not represent the interests of all those affected.  Some of these are intergovernmental (like the TPP), some are private (like the policies of Google, Facebook, Paypal, etc).  So a practical need for a global body or process is to create an overarching framework of consensual, human-rights based substantive and procedural principles that can guide governance processes (whether public or private) that take place elsewhere, to make those processes are more democratic than they are now.
> 
> This sounds like your position is that the existing processes are broken from first principles (they're not democratic and representative enough), so the outcomes *must* be suspect-- it's not necessary to point to anything in particular as a failure of the current mechanisms in order to justify the need for something new, although you point to the actions of the NSA and the policies of some large companies, in general terms, as examples.
> 
> Have I understood your argument correctly?

Yes.  They're not just suspect, they're illegitimate.

> If so-- thanks for the explanation. I think I understand now where some of us have been talking past each other.
> 
> If not-- apologies for whatever I've missed, and thanks for your time.

Sure.  For a more extended treatment, which goes into what I described as the "engineering problem" above, you can read the 600 page tome that I wrote on the topic: http://books.google.com.my/books?isbn=0980508401.  Or some other, shorter pieces:

http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf
http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/infosoc2012-ch7.pdf
http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140106/a0072ff4/signature.asc>