<font color="#333333"><font size="2"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">Veni,</font></font></font><div><font color="#333333"><font size="2"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><br></font></font></font></div><div><font color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif">Yes, there is a lot more than the ICANN dimension. In the Governance list, William Drake posted this:</font></div>
<div><font color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance Forum that says, inter alia,</blockquote><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(68, 68, 68)"><blockquote>
"The WSIS Forum 2010 was held in May 2010 in Geneva, and the venue for the next one, in 2011, is the United Nations headquarters in New York. The question of Internet governance is just one of the many questions raised by WSIS, and it would appear logical that IGF should in future be held as part of the WSIS Forum in order for there to be a common platform for all stakeholders seeking to implement WSIS outcomes. This will serve to broaden the audience, particularly within developing countries, and reduce costs for organizers and participants alike. Proposal: To consider IGF as a part of the WSIS Forum in the interests of combining efforts, facilitating participation, especially for developing-country representatives, reducing costs and avoiding duplication of effort."<br>
<br>He further said that "I had ITU staffers tell me in Tunis when the IGF was endorsed that "we'll be running this thing in five years." He further says that the same Governments that support an ITU role in Names and Numbers are the ones that support the ITU on its IGF agenda. <br>
<br></blockquote>The choice of Venue for WSIS 2011 is UN, New York, which would enable the ITU to lobby the UN Diplomats and push forward its IGF agenda.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); "><br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(68, 68, 68)"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); ">So the <b>ITU aspirations are not ICANN specific. We can't be euphoric because the Russian proposal of a veto for ITU is legally infeasible. The larger issue is that of the ITU aspiration to occupy seats in Internet Governance and that isn't good for the world. </b></span></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#444444" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><b><br></b></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#444444" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><b>This is what makes it important to press for a review of ITU's role in Policy. This is why I wrote what I wrote.</b><br>
</span></font><div><div><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(68, 68, 68)"><br></span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#444444" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">Sivasubramanian M</span></font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(68, 68, 68)"><br></span><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Veni Markovski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:veni@veni.com" target="_blank">veni@veni.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">For the record:<br>
- Governments are not the same at ICANN and ITU. There are about 90<br>
more at ITU.<br>
- Russia is a member of the GAC<br>
- RCC is one of the not so many regional organizations at ITU (like<br>
Citel, CEPTA, etc).<br>
- document quoted is correct, but that's not the only one that needs<br>
to be addressed, there are more. Perhaps Wolfgang could send others,<br>
too.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Veni<br>
<a href="http://www.veni.com" target="_blank">http://www.veni.com</a><br>
(via blackberry)<br>
<div><br>
<br>
On 10/9/10, Sivasubramanian M <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Dear Alejandro,<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Alejandro Pisanty<br>
> <<a href="mailto:apisan@servidor.unam.mx" target="_blank">apisan@servidor.unam.mx</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Siva,<br>
>><br>
>> thanks for sharing.<br>
>><br>
>> Could you find a reference for the Russian position you mention, in order<br>
>> to be able to quote it directly in full detail? (no doubt it was as you<br>
>> write! it is consistent with previous statements and actions.)<br>
>><br>
><br>
> First brought up in the Governance list by Wolfgang Kleinwaechter based on<br>
> the article<br>
> US and Russia face off over ICANN veto<br>
</div>> power<<a href="http://domainincite.com/us-and-russia-face-off-over-icann-veto-power/" target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/us-and-russia-face-off-over-icann-veto-power/</a>><br>
<div>> where it says:<br>
><br>
> A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation’s<br>
> Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give<br>
> itself veto power over ICANN decisions.<br>
><br>
> A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of<br>
</div>> Communications<<a href="http://en.rcc.org.ru/" target="_blank">http://en.rcc.org.ru/</a>> (RCC)<br>
<div><div></div><div>> calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and<br>
> replaced by an ITU group.<br>
><br>
> "Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of<br>
>> GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the<br>
>> authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it<br>
>> is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult<br>
>> ICANN on the matter. "<br>
><br>
><br>
> I have read your article and find it useful. I do not think that the<br>
>> proposal you make in conclusion is workable. The GAC does not exist as a<br>
>> grouping of governments different from the ITU. There are just so many<br>
>> governments in the world and it is only one per country ;-).<br>
>><br>
>> Many governments do play out different policy agendas in the ICANN GAC, in<br>
>> the IGF, and in the ITU. They do so through different units (ministries of<br>
>> telecoms, trade, foreign relations, science and technology, etc.) and at<br>
>> different levels (often a higher-level official tracks the ITU than the<br>
>> Internet-related fora.)<br>
>><br>
>> But in the end, Siva, its the same ones all over. That turns your<br>
>> description of the solution overly simplistic.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> The Governments are the same at ICANN and ITU. I haven't missed this point.<br>
> My rationale for referring to the GAC as if it were a separate Government<br>
> forum is this: At the ITU, the Internet Community is far removed from<br>
> Governments, while at the GAC Governments are approachable by the Community<br>
> and open to consultations.<br>
><br>
> What I tried to do is to draw attention to the need for a "review the role<br>
> of the ITU in Government Policy" The essence of the proposal is that "The<br>
> ITU is balanced to the fair level of any other Business Association such as<br>
> Airlines or Ocean liners."<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> What we can do, and actually are doing in many chapters including yours,<br>
>> is<br>
>> an awareness and influence effort, in which we continue to strive for our<br>
>> own governments (each of us) to have a broader picture of the global<br>
>> Internet agenda and thus pay attention to each forum appropriately.<br>
>><br>
>> With time and some luck, we manage for high-ranking officials to see what<br>
>> the ill effects of some things like the ITU's resolution 102 (on Internet<br>
>> public-policy issues) and others like the cybersecurity work (which you<br>
>> correctly describe in all its fake-ness) are. And counteract them by not<br>
>> letting the ITU get a heavier hand.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Your approach is "not to let the ITU get a heavier hand" and if we achieve<br>
> that, the effect would be temporary. The ITU would not learn to stay<br>
> balanced. After Cairo, the ITU appeared slowed down on its ICANN<br>
> aspirations, but now we know that this apparent detachment was only<br>
> temporary.<br>
><br>
> What is required is a definite and conclusive solution of calling the ITU<br>
> bluff. It is time we alerted the Governments that the perpetuation of the<br>
> extraordinary status to the Telecommunication Businesses is unhealthy. It is<br>
> time we called for a separation of Government and the Telecoms.<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> To that we add the central efforts of ISOC HQ and chapter-collaborative<br>
>> work with them for deeper and broader analysis and statements than we<br>
>> sometimes can produce individually in the chapters and which agree with<br>
>> the<br>
>> organizational members too.<br>
>><br>
>> So let's take that into action now along the lines of your concerns.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Thank You for your response and analysis. The action has to happen at ISOC<br>
> as well as at ICANN. Hope we succeed in this task of balancing the<br>
> Telecommunication Lobby.<br>
><br>
> Sivasubramanian M<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Alejandro Pisanty<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br>
>> .<br>
>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty<br>
>> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico<br>
>><br>
>> Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732<br>
>><br>
>> * Mi blog/My blog: <a href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://pisanty.blogspot.com</a><br>
>> * LinkedIn profile: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty</a><br>
>> * Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/apisanty" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/apisanty</a><br>
>> * Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,<br>
>> <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614</a><br>
>><br>
>> * Ven a ISOC Mexico, <a href="http://www.isoc.org.mx" target="_blank">http://www.isoc.org.mx</a>, ISOC <a href="http://www.isoc.org" target="_blank">http://www.isoc.org</a><br>
>> *Participa en ICANN, <a href="http://www.icann.org" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org</a><br>
>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br>
>> .<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, Sivasubramanian M wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 21:41:44 +0530<br>
>>> From: Sivasubramanian M <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> To: Chapter Delegates <<a href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org" target="_blank">chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a>><br>
>>> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] ITU, ICANN and Internet Governance<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Hello<br>
>>><br>
>>> At Guadalajara, Mexico this week, in the policy debate kicked off by the<br>
>>> ITU, Russian Federation's Minister of Communications proposed that the<br>
>>> ITU<br>
>>> should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions. This proposal by the<br>
>>> Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the<br>
>>> ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to be scrapped and replaced<br>
>>> by<br>
>>> an ITU group.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I wrote an article about it, on CircleID<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/" target="_blank">http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> May I request your comments on this?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Sivasubramanian M<br>
>>> <a href="http://turiya.co.in" target="_blank">http://turiya.co.in</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.isocmadras.com" target="_blank">http://www.isocmadras.com</a><br>
>>> facebook: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Sh" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8Sh</a><br>
>>> LinkedIn: <a href="http://is.gd/x8U6" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8U6</a><br>
>>> Twitter: <a href="http://is.gd/x8Vz" target="_blank">http://is.gd/x8Vz</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">--<br>
Sent from my mobile device<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></div>