[Chapter-delegates] ITU, ICANN and Internet Governance

[Veni Markovski]

For the record:
- Governments are not the same at ICANN and ITU. There are about 90
more at ITU.
- Russia is a member of the GAC
- RCC is one of the not so many regional organizations at ITU (like
Citel, CEPTA, etc).
- document quoted is correct, but that's not the only one that needs
to be addressed, there are more. Perhaps Wolfgang could send others,
too.


Best,
Veni
http://www.veni.com
(via blackberry)


On 10/9/10, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device