[Lac] presentaciones en ginebra de IG

[Beatriz Busaniche]

Esta es la presentación de Wolfgang Kleinwachter, del caucus de IG de
sociedad civil 
...............

Multilayer, Multiplayer:  
Do we Need a TCP/IP like “Internet Governance Protocol”?  
 
Informal Consultation of the Working Group on Internet Governance  
Statement by Wolfgang Kleinwæchter, University of Aarhus,  
Geneva, September, 21, 2004 
 
 
Mr. Chairman, 
 
To be frank, I believe that it would not be helpful if we start our
discussion with issues like “leadership”, “control” or “new
organisations”.  This is “old thinking” and would lead us back into the
past. The Internet is about the future. We have to look forward. We need
innovative creations. The Internet is a network of networks. We have
many layers and many (rather different) players. And it is growing.
Neither new “hierarchies” nor new “buerocracies” will be helpful. What
we need is a much better collaboration among all the old and new
emerging networks so that the Internet as a whole can deliver its value
to the real people: The providers and users of services on the ground.  
 
We know that the Internet is a multilayer system and that Internet
Governance needs the involvement of all stakeholders: governments,
private industry and civil society. But the concrete level of
involvement of the individual stakeholders for a special issue,
including the answer to the question who leads what and which
organisational form is needed, depends from the nature of the issue and
the level of the layer.   
 
It makes sense to go through the different layers issue by issue; to
determine on a case by case basis the most adequate triangular
stakeholder governance combination. As a general rule one can conclude
that the options range from “dominant private sector leadership” on the
lowest layer to “dominant governmental leadership” on the highest layer
with different co-governance combinations on the layers in between,
according to the specific nature of the issue.  
 
Each layer and each issue needs a special governance model. In such a
system all layers and players would have to work together to make the
system as a whole functioning and efficient. Even more, all layers and
players are becoming dependent from each other and constitute in their
entirety a global Internet Governance model  which could be described as
a “Multilayer-Multiplayer Mechanism”. (M3)  
 
The “Multilayer-Multiplayer Mechanism” (M3) would have no central or
final authority. The involved governmental and non-governmental
organisations and institutions are not subordinated to each other. All
institutions are “independent” in their “internal affairs”, but
“dependent” from the other institutions in their “external affairs”.  
 
Every institution has its own sovereignty and a responsibility for the
global Internet community. But this is only part of a general
responsibility, which all players, regardless of their legal status,
have to share.  
 
To make the system work a high level of communication, coordination and
cooperation (C3) among all members of the mechanism is needed. And it
needs a high level of transparency and openness. A system of
“communication channels” and “liaisons” can link the players together.
To make the mechanism stable, a net of bilateral arrangements in this
multilateral environment can be developed, where needed.   
 
Such a governance structure would reflect to a certain degree the
technical architecture of the Internet: A network of networks with
different domains and name and root servers, linked together via a
common protocol. To enable an efficient collaboration we need probably
something like TCP/IP for “Internet Governance”, an “Internet Governance
Protocol” for the enormous web of organisations and institutions which
have a stake in management, administration and use of the Internet.  
 
In such an endless global open network-scheme a WGIG type of
multistakeholder organisation could function as a “governance root
server”. It would not need a decision making power, but all the
knowledge about all “top level domains”. It would have to know “who is
doing what and where with which capacity” and it have to guide the
queries and problems to the right place for policy development and
decision making.  
 
ITU, ICANN, UNESCO, WIPO, OECD, GBDe, NRO, IETF, ISOC, W3C, ETSI, ISO,
COE, ICC etc. can function like “name servers”: They manage their own
“Internet Governance Domains” under their own constitutions with their
own constituencies. Some will have to manage “big domains”, others
smaller ones. And in cases they need something from another “domain”,
they could go down the road to the root and ask who in the multilayer
multiplayer mechanism deals with the relevant issue.  
 
Such a system would allow to build a model of Internet Co-Governance,
where governmental and non-governmental actors are collaborating in a
constructive coexistence and which is open for further innovative
developments.   
 
Internet Governance needs the participation of all affected and
concerned governmental and non-governmental constituencies. There is no
Internet for a single country or single group. The Internet is a global
public resource, which is owned by nobody but brings benefits to
everybody. But it is too big that it could be governed, managed and/or
coordinated by somebody.  
 
Thank you Mr. Chairman