[Chapter-delegates] ITU, ICANN and Internet Governance

Sat Oct 9 11:12:40 PDT 2010

Dear Alejandro,

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Alejandro Pisanty
<apisan at servidor.unam.mx>wrote:

> Siva,
>
> thanks for sharing.
>
> Could you find a reference for the Russian position you mention, in order
> to be able to quote it directly in full detail? (no doubt it was as you
> write! it is consistent with previous statements and actions.)
>

First brought up in the Governance list by Wolfgang Kleinwaechter based on
the article
US and Russia face off over ICANN veto
power<http://domainincite.com/us-and-russia-face-off-over-icann-veto-power/>
  where it says:

A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation’s
Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give
itself veto power over ICANN decisions.

A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of
Communications<http://en.rcc.org.ru/> (RCC)
calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and
replaced by an ITU group.

"Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of
> GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the
> authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it
> is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult
> ICANN on the matter.  "

I have read your article and find it useful. I do not think that the
> proposal you make in conclusion is workable. The GAC does not exist as a
> grouping of governments different from the ITU. There are just so many
> governments in the world and it is only one per country ;-).
>
> Many governments do play out different policy agendas in the ICANN GAC, in
> the IGF, and in the ITU. They do so through different units (ministries of
> telecoms, trade, foreign relations, science and technology, etc.) and at
> different levels (often a higher-level official tracks the ITU than the
> Internet-related fora.)
>
> But in the end, Siva, its the same ones all over. That turns your
> description of the solution overly simplistic.
>

The Governments are the same at ICANN and ITU. I haven't missed this point.
My rationale for referring to the GAC as if it were a separate Government
forum is this: At the ITU, the Internet Community is far removed from
Governments, while at the GAC Governments are approachable by the Community
and open to consultations.

What I tried to do is to draw attention to the need for a "review the role
of the ITU in Government Policy"  The essence of the proposal is that "The
ITU is balanced to the fair level of any other Business Association such as
Airlines or Ocean liners."

>
> What we can do, and actually are doing in many chapters including yours, is
> an awareness and influence effort, in which we continue to strive for our
> own governments (each of us) to have a broader picture of the global
> Internet agenda and thus pay attention to each forum appropriately.
>
> With time and some luck, we manage for high-ranking officials to see what
> the ill effects of some things like the ITU's resolution 102 (on Internet
> public-policy issues) and others like the cybersecurity work (which you
> correctly describe in all its fake-ness) are. And counteract them by not
> letting the ITU get a heavier hand.
>

Your approach is "not to let the ITU get a heavier hand" and if we achieve
that, the effect would be temporary. The ITU would not learn to stay
balanced. After Cairo, the ITU appeared slowed down on its ICANN
aspirations, but now we know that this apparent detachment was only
temporary.

What is required is a definite and conclusive solution of calling the ITU
bluff. It is time we alerted the Governments that the perpetuation of the
extraordinary status to the Telecommunication Businesses is unhealthy. It is
time we called for a separation of Government and the Telecoms.

>
> To that we add the central efforts of ISOC HQ and chapter-collaborative
> work with them for deeper and broader analysis and statements than we
> sometimes can produce individually in the chapters and which agree with the
> organizational members too.
>
> So let's take that into action now along the lines of your concerns.
>

Thank You for your response and analysis. The action has to happen at ISOC
as well as at ICANN. Hope we succeed in this task of balancing the
Telecommunication Lobby.

Sivasubramanian M

>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
>     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
> Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732
>
> * Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> * LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> * Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> * Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>
> * Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
> *Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>  .
>
>
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>
>  Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 21:41:44 +0530
>> From: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
>> To: Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] ITU, ICANN and Internet Governance
>>
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> At Guadalajara, Mexico this week, in the policy debate kicked off by the
>> ITU, Russian Federation's Minister of Communications proposed that the ITU
>> should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions. This proposal by the
>> Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the
>> ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to be scrapped and replaced by
>> an ITU group.
>>
>> I wrote an article about it, on CircleID
>>
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/on_the_need_to_separate_the_telecom_business_agenda_from_government_policy/
>>
>> May I request your comments on this?
>>
>> Sivasubramanian M
>> http://turiya.co.in
>>
>> http://www.isocmadras.com
>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20101009/e96819e2/attachment.htm>