[Chapter-delegates] ITU, ICANN and Internet Governance

Sat Oct 9 14:03:47 PDT 2010

Veni,

Yes, there is a lot more than the ICANN dimension. In the Governance list,
William Drake posted this:

The Russian text includes a section on The Future of the Internet Governance
> Forum that says, inter alia,

"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."

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.

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.

So the *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. *
*
*
*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.*

Sivasubramanian M

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20101010/0b847e17/attachment.htm>