23 November, 2010

Committed or Condemned? The words matter

Paul Levins
In an article posted on the Global Internet Business Coalition website Paul Levins writes (excerpts):

From 2006-2010, I was the Executive Officer and Vice President at ICANN. I spent a good chunk of that time working on the strategy to conclude the Joint Project Agreement (JPA). During that time the argument centred on whether ending the JPA would somehow change ICANN’s relationship with the world. There was a lot of fear and concern then too. Some were worried that simply ending the JPA with no other statement would leave ICANN open to capture. But others believed that unless the JPA ended, it would demonstrate that one government had already captured the organization.

The way through the debate was to confirm what worked about ICANN – to make a commitment to the model once and for all and for the organization, in return, to commit to certain behaviours and activities. In short, to cement in place what worked and to commit to fixing the parts that didn’t.

The result was the “Affirmation of Commitments“.
What’s the lesson out of this?
As has been documented elsewhere, the ITU has recently also passed a resolution in Guadalajara that is all too typical of resolutions written by representatives of nation states with all the sensitivity that necessitates – it’s long and oozing with words.  But amongst all the words it called for the ITU:
to explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and relevant organizations involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future of the Internet, through cooperation agreements, as appropriate, in order to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance so as to ensure maximum benefits to the global community;
It’s the ‘increase the role’ bit that is pivotal.

If that means to formally recognize the ITU’s role in supporting the modern Internet and promoting development in underdeveloped nations, but not expanding it so as to control in any way (as Dr TourĂ© makes plain) – then we should be actively looking for ways to enshrine this important development.

A commitment by the ITU and its colleague organisations to keep their relationships the same, to what is currently working well and to make it clear that the ITU has no designs other than what it does now, is ironically going to be the way to move forward in this seemingly repetitive debate.
Cooperation Agreements, MoUs (call them what you like) are fine documents but they are malleable and they are different from a commitment.

After all, it’s those very organizations and the relationships they presently have and have held for years that have delivered the Internet as the magnificent non-centrally controlled and interoperable ecosystem it has become.  Committing to these relationships will help to overcome fears about the stability of the governance of the Internet and provide greater certainty for all.

No comments:

Post a Comment