[Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo

Mon Nov 10 01:09:34 EST 2008

>>I was telling to many people from developing countries who were fighting
for Internet governance: "Before you get the governance, get the Internet
first." 

>Yes, that allows various interests to give shape to the internet in a
manner that is most advantageous for commerce and government. After that any
>process of debate on Governance wouldn't be able to reverse the practices
established. 

Sivasubramanian,

 You make an important point. The above assertion about focusing on getting
the Internet before seeking a role in IG, which seems to have some obvious
force in its utter simplicity, has been much abused in the IG space.

Many already entrenched in important positions vis a vis IG have made this
assertion often. I dont know whether you followed the clamor early last
year when CIRs were sought to be discussed in the IGF, how so many voices
suddenly begun to claim that the IGF should be looking mostly at the issue
of spreading Internet access, and that the really disadvantaged people
werent really bothered with such IG issues at all. Such patronizing and
patently anti-democratic statements bothered some of us a lot.

On the other hand, while admittedly the situation regarding access to the
Internet is really dismal in so many parts of the world, what is unfortunate
is that many people who seek to represent the interests of disadvantaged
groups themselves fall into the simplistic trap of valorizing access and
capacity building over IG. This represents the basic needs versus
governance stakes and rights dilemma much discussed in development
literature. Both are important and as you say, if the disadvantaged groups
do not stake their rightful claim to IG now, soon it will be too late, and
they will be condemned to live with an Internet, and an information society,
whose architecture is already cast by the dominant market and statist
interests.

Parminder  

  _____  

From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:42 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Cc: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Subject: Re: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage Re:
[governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo

Hello Wolfgang Kleinwaehter and All,

Here are my comments on the Speech at the ICANN Meeting in Cairo, 6 November
2008 by Hamadoun Toure, Secretary General of the ITU. When I read what I
wrote, I am surprised that some of these comments sound intense. Part of
what is written might not even be fair, but I am posting it as written.
Please take this sufficiently factored down, because I was not there at
Cairo to "feel" his speech. The comments are based on my impressions from
the speech transcript. It is based on the superficial knowledge that the ITU
places the interests of the Telecom companies and the Governments paramount.

Also, I have picked up portions of the Secretary General's speech for
comments. In this critique, what is missing are positive remarks that are
due. It is positive as a gesture on the part of the ITU Secretary General to
have extended an arm to work with ICANN and to pronounce a desire to be
committed to the mutli-stakeholder approach. But in this message I have
chosen to read between the lines of the Secretary General's transcript, just
to raise some points for discussion.

Comments:

since 1865, since the creation of the telegraph. And we are very proud of
the way the organization has been able to adapt itself over the years and
decades and centuries, from telegraph to telephone to teletypewriters, to
radio and television. We are talking about digital broadcasting now. And
very soon, 3D television. We are talking about the emergence of new
technologies.

ITU adopts itself to own all inter-human communication in any form.

I was telling to many people from developing countries who were fighting for
Internet governance: "Before you get the governance, get the Internet
first." 

Yes, that allows various interests to give shape to the internet in a manner
that is most advantageous for commerce and government. After that any
process of debate on Governance wouldn't be able to reverse the practices
established. 

ICANN is just ten years old but it's done a great job. 

Yes, ITU is older. We notice that the ITU has governed Communications around
the world for over 143 years.

we had a very successful WSIS. For the first time, a UN body was organizing
a summit, where you didn't have demonstrations outside. 

Business and Government kept the Civil Society locked out in several
international conventions that were either in the Governments' Diplomatic
Territory or Business' Commercial Territory. The Internet is Civil Sphere
and the Governments were the latecomers. What ought to have been said here
is that the Civil Society included Government and Business and not vice
versa. 

Every time a Web browser establishes a secure connection to a server, ITU's
work on PKIs, public key infrastructures, and encryption keys, is used. Our
pioneering work on electronic authentication enabled jurisdictions around
the world to recognize e-mail as legal documents and to give legal studies
to electronic signatures. 

I can't help notice that most of the work that the ITU has done relates to
"authentication", "security" etc. to enable "jurisdiction". Isn't the ITU
working on making the Internet what it is not?

We [ITU and ICANN] just have to learn to know each other better so that we
can like each other and work together. And the main reason why I'm here is
that is my motto: "

This sounds dangerous. The DOC-supervised ICANN and the inter-governmental
ITU aligned together !

IGF is just going around and around, avoiding the topics, and becomes
sometimes a waste of time. 

I agree. I fully agree. One reason is the limitation of the UN mandate to
the IGF. IGF does not even have recommendary 'powers' and the IGF process is
in a sense a huge distraction away from the policy changes and new Internet
legislations that get enacted in bits and pieces (leading to an untold
comprehensive whole) in different parts of the world - for e.g. the move by
UK to direct ISPs to retain traffic records for two years. IGF requires a
complete re-redesign.

Next year, ITU will organize the World Policy Forum, which addresses a
number of Internet-related public-policy issues, ranging from cybersecurity
and data protection to multilingualism and the ongoing development of
Internet. 

World Policy Forum? For the ITU to psychologically claim its stake as the
ICT super-authority?

I hope you will not tell me here, "Don't talk about Internet." ....  we need
to talk about it. And you shouldn't see us as an enemy. I always said that I
have enough on my plate in ITU and there is no need to add more. 

I don't get the feeling that ITU is content with its sphere of influence.

If you want an Internet connection for a business or a house, they will ask
you first if you have a telephone line. 

Why do I need an ITU regulated and monitored phone line to qualify for
Internet Access? Why isn't the Community doing enough to bring in alternate
technologies?

During the debates of the WSIS, when people were talking about Internet
governance, I was telling them, "Get Internet first before you talk about
getting the governance of it." I was giving simple example, comparing
Internet and telecommunications to trucks or cars and highways. It's not
because you own the highways that you're going to own all the trucks or cars
running on them, and certainly not the goods that they are transporting, or
vice versa. It's a simple analogy. 

Great. The road analogy isn't all that perfect as an analogy for the
Internet. I will let it go to say that those who owns the roads get to
decide who rides and who doesn't and gets to decide what to charge as toll
fee. 

.... the relationship between the Internet and the telecommunication
world... And they are condemned to work together. It's a condemned marriage.
So better enjoy it. If you know that you're not going to get divorced in any
case because you're condemned to live together, you better find a way to
enjoy each other, and have kids in the process.

The Internet CAN technically divorce the telecoms or even scale up to
include telecoms services as part of the internet. It is a condemned
marriage alright, but if one partner is too difficult and drives the other
to the wall, a divorce isn't technically infeasible.

It has been alleged in some corners of the ITU that ITU wishes to govern the
Internet. And I have specifically said that I categorically deny that. 

When someone in government or someone connected to government "denies"
something, it is always true. 

And I say today again to you, it is not the case. My intention as
Secretary-General of ITU is not to govern the Internet. But we need to work
together, because there are developing countries that are in need of access.
At the end of this year, we'll have four billion mobile telephones in the
world. While we try to bridge the gap in telephony, we have to ensure that
no new gap is created in Internet and no new gap is created in broadband for
us to help other sectors to meet the Millennium Development Goals.
Therefore, there is a need for these two societies to work together. Almost
half of the people in this room are very active participants in the ITU.
And, therefore, I think there is room for us to know each other and to
understand.

ITU's role as a multilateral forum for debate is to serve as a source of
impartial expert information and guidance, just as we have done for nearly
145 years. We strive to help all parties work together to clarify the issues
and build consensus on the most effective ways of promoting the evolution
and uptake of this powerful resource. And we have that capability. We are
proud of that culture. It's the only organization where you will have
countries that are at war on other fronts, are supporting each other with
common resolutions, without the people supporting those resolutions being
fired. I'm proud to say that we are the only organization where you have
Iran supporting "his friends", I quote, of the United States, or vice versa
and the people who have supported that are still alive. It happens on a
daily basis. We never had any Palestinian-Israeli crisis inside the ITU.
They share spectrums. So we are in a position to work with everyone, because
we have a technical approach to issues. 

Impressive. But aren't you bidding to take over the internet by saying all
this ?

ITU is also actively encouraging the industry-wide move to IPv6. Again,
looking on the Web all of last week, I've seen numerous attacks on the ITU
for having pronounced the world IPv6.This is a concern for all of us. Every
mobile phone will have an IP address, every fridge, every car, it's an
inevitable thing. 

What concerns me is the fact that IPV6 seems to have obviated (or made
impossible) Network Address Translation. This means that everything that I
ever say on the Internet is linked to my unique, unchangeable IPV6 address.
My computer has an unchanging, permanent IPV6 address. My refrigerator and
my MP4 player will have a traceable IPV6 address.  Where is my privacy?
Perhaps I will be able to borrow my refrigerator's IPV6 address to send an
email to my top secret girl friend and in case my wife gets hold of that
message I could blame it on the refrigerator? (this comment in particular
without in-depth knowledge of the technical architecture of IPV6) 

In 2005, WSIS mandated ITU to take a lead role in building confidence and
security in the use of ICTs. I put in place a high-level expert group last
year to study the issue and report to the council, with the final report
this year. We are gaining a momentum as we move steadily towards agreements
on an international set of principles and best-practice approaches that
countries around the world can follow to promote cybersecurity.

Security concerns are center stage on the ITU agenda, pushing the need to
build (user) Confidence out of view. What has ITU done on the privacy front,
to protest against legislations such as directives by UK to ISPs to retain
email logs for two years or directives by governments to facilitate
recording of mobile phone conversations?  

Estonian network was down for two days. .. And during the uprising between
Georgia and Russia, we have noticed a large number of botnets or cyber
attacks between the two countries. That is scary. ...

Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that it is sometimes Governments
that cause or engineer some of the major cyber incidents?

Our children, who spend most of their time in cyberspace, are not taught the
basic behaviours in the cyberspace. When they go out in the street, we tell
them, "Be careful. Don't talk to strangers, don't accept candy from someone
you don't know. It could be a drug that could kill you." But they're out
there in cyberspace without telling them what to do or how to behave. 

Yes, we will make them paranoid.

The potential of the Internet to accelerate social and economic development
in the world's poorest regions is perhaps its greatest asset. I hope you
will support ITU in our ongoing effort to see that everyone everywhere has a
chance to benefit from that potential for the betterment of our planet, and
for humankind, for all humankind.

Sounds rhetorical.

We will never counter terrorism if we don't have a harmonized way of tracing
back the IP address. ...

How would I trust the Law and Order agencies to restrict use of these
technologies only against terrorists and criminals and not against the
unsuspecting citizens ?

ZAHID JAMIL, DNS Resolution Center Pakistan: 

I am a lawyer from Pakistan. Your Excellency, I heard you talk about the
important role that ITU can play in everything from IPv6, the coordination
of the IP-based networks, cybersecurity, privacy, data protection,
cybersecurity, cyberterrorism, multilingualism, IDNs, a whole bunch of
things. My only question is, to what extent do you think ITU would have any
restrictions, because it seems it would probably become the regulator in
convergence of everything. So is there a limitation you can see as far as
the ITU's scope?

Touche'

WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER, University of Aarhus

what is the future of civil society in the ITU? ITU has nearly 200 member
states and more than 700 private sector members. When civil society becomes
an equal partner in this setting?

Is it really possible to believe that the Civil Society would be represented
at the ITU so broadly as to balance the 191 member srates and 700 private
sector companies? ITU is ITU. It could come to the IGF to represent business
and government. If Civil Society focuses its effort on getting better
represented at the ITU, some day the IGF could become a part of the ITU.

HAMMADOUN TOURE, Secretary General of the ITU

Government is in an advisory role. Advisory role! You advise me and I am
free to take your advice? 

Advice from Government always comes with the subtle posture of  "It is just
an advice or a suggestion, but remember where it comes from"

During the WSIS process, we had a problem that some member states have
genuinely raised. We have countries like China. During a PrepCom in Japan we
spent three days out of four not working because there were some so-called
civil society, NGO that were government officials from Taiwan. The Chinese
delegation came with their photos and information on them from the Web that
they are government officials, and they registered as NGOs. It's a problem.

Thank you for bringing that up. This is really an issue about how the Civil
Society is constituted at least in parts. We need to clean up a little bit.

HAMMADOUN TOURE, Secretary General of the ITU

Now, let's be clear. Government cannot get into individual people's privacy.

Please, don't. 

......   I'm telling you my intention is not, from ITU, to try and take over
Internet. 

When someone in government or someone from an inter-governmental
organization talks of an absence of an intention, there is always an
intention. 

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>Interested in analysis of how we can avoid this. Certainly some parties
wish to avoid meaningful discussion, and are we diplomatically sweeping
under the carpet >all the important issues (lest anyone take offence?)

Ian, you point to an important issue, and danger.

Some of us have been arguing for long that the IGF is civil society's best
bet in many ways. It is a new-age organization that is relatively
representative of people and groups across the world, and still has been
able to maintain some distance from strong statist control on the one side
and corporate control on the other. 

However, many others in the civil society, including within the IGC, have
been over-cautious in putting our weight behind strengthening the IGF in all
ways that we can  whether the issue has been of some substantive (and not
merely advisorial) capacity of the core IGF group (currently named MAG) or
doing substantive inter-sessional work and giving some kind of real, if
non-binding, outputs on key IG issues. 

I think that we as a group may need to revisit our positions on this issue,
or al least discuss them to see if new directions need to be taken in view
of current and emergent realities. 

It is a fact that the IGF may be in real trouble, and in the danger of being
sidelined as an annual conference that no one of any real importance takes
any note of. We must review what would it mean in terms of civil society and
progressive interests. In light of such a review we may need to have clearer
common positions of how we want to engage with the IGF, and how we want to
see it evolve. Such a review is an even more urgent imperative in view of
the forthcoming process of IGF review which will start in earnest
immediately after the IGF, Hyderabad. What gets said and discussed at
Hyderabad may have some important implications for this review.

Parminder 

  _____  

From: gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] On Behalf
Of Ian Peter
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:02 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET'

Cc: 'WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance'

Subject: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage Re:
[governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo

The telling statement from ITU being "I am personally of the opinion that
the IGF is continuously going round in circles and avoiding issues  it is
becoming more and more a waste of time."

Interested in analysis of how we can avoid this. Certainly some parties wish
to avoid meaningful discussion, and are we diplomatically sweeping under the
carpet all the important issues (lest anyone take offence?)

My fear here is that the outcomes if IGF doesn't succeed in addressing the
real issues are worse than those if it does succeed. Balkanisation or
globalisation? Take your pick
.

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

  _____  

From: Dr. Francis MUGUET [mailto:muguet at mdpi.net] 
Sent: 09 November 2008 15:44
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Wolfgang
Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance
Subject: ITU and ICANN  a loveless forced marriage Re: [governance] ITU &
ICANN in Cairo

Dear Wolfgang

Interesting to notice a press analysis of Touré's speech, most notably about
the IGF.

The statement from Touré has not been unnoticed.

Coming back to what we do with ICANN, we also participate actively in the
work of Internet Governance Forum, which was established as the result of
the multistakeholder deliberations at the WSIS. I personally believe that
the IGF is just going around and around, avoiding the topics, and becomes
sometimes a waste of time. We need to address issues frankly and try to
solve them. And that's why I thought I should be here to talk to you here,
so that we learn to know each other better. Next year, ITU will organize the
World Policy Forum, which addresses a number of Internet-related
public-policy issues, ranging from cybersecurity and data protection to
multilingualism and the ongoing development of Internet. I hope you will not
tell me here, "Don't talk about Internet." It's an issue for everyone.

Best Francis

---------------------------------
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/print/111914

7 November 2008, 12:30

ITU and ICANN  a loveless forced marriage

ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré has called for better collaboration
between the International Telecommunication Union[1] (ITU) and the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers[2] (ICANN). "Our members have
unnecessarily attacked and criticised each other and I think we should put
an end to that," said Touré on Thursday at the 33rd ICANN meeting in Cairo.
According to Touré, the two organisations need to get to know each other
better and learn to love each other, as telecommunications and the internet
are ultimately condemned to a "forced marriage".

Despite the outstretched hand, the ITU Secretary General did not spare the
criticism in his first appearance at an ICANN meeting. Touré made it clear
to the assembled experts that he saw his organisation as playing the
dominant role in the forced marriage and made his opinion of the other party
clear  provocatively describing ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee as
purely cosmetic.

The depth of the chasm between the two  the UN organisation, which has its
roots in the telecommunications world, and the quasi-internet-regulator
ICANN  was stressed by a series of further statements in the half-hour talk
given by the head of the ITU. Touré repeatedly spoke of the "war" between
the two organisations. According to Touré, who was elected in 2006, "The
best way to win a war, is to prevent it."

In the course of his 'marriage proposal', he referred extensively to the
ITU's outstanding role. Key topics for his organisation, he noted, include
the internationalisation of domains, something with which ICANN is currently
engaged, the transition to IPv6[3], standardisation for the all-IP Next
Generation Network[4] (NGN), cyber-security, the fight against online
terrorism and child protection online.

Touré rejected concerns that the ITU was appointing itself as global
regulator of internet resources and processes, "The ITU has clear
boundaries. We do not perform the operative business." However, he
underlined the organisation's demand, set out in its Cybersecurity
Agenda[5], to be responsible for a global framework in the fight against
online terrorism and criminality. He also defended the controversial IP
traceback[6] standard proposal. "There is not one country which isn't doing
it, it's just that each country is doing it differently," said Touré.

Touré also rejected criticism that the ITU operates behind closed doors. He
stated that the organisation has around 700 sector members from the
telecommunications industry and also admits NGOs as members. Touré also
praised the ITU's openness  a nod to the World Summit on the Information
Society[7] (WSIS). The summit, organised under ITU auspices, is, according
to Touré, the first UN summit at which civil society has also been invited
to sit at the table, rather than demonstrating outside.

In the same breath, Touré expressed strong criticism of the Internet
Governance Forum[8] (IGF), which was called into being by the WSIS, "I am
personally of the opinion that the IGF is continuously going round in
circles and avoiding issues  it is becoming more and more a waste of time."
Therefore, the ITU is planning a global forum for internet policy next year
as a rival event.

Touré also fired a further undiplomatic broadside at the work performed by
governments within ICANN. "The Governmental Advisory Committee is ICANN's
weak point," said Touré. His criticism was directed at the advisory function
of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in developing rules for the
domain name system. "If someone gives me advice, I am free to take it or
leave it." The ICANN's GAC is therefore nothing more than "cosmetic", noted
Touré forthrightly.

In a short statement following Touré's speech, the Brazilian government
representative on the GAC demanded, in the name of his and the Argentinian
government, the "strengthening of the GAC". Latvian diplomat Janis Karklins,
re-elected as GAC chairman, by contrast noted that the ITU and ICANN
operated according to very different political models, "From the viewpoint
of an international organisation, the ICANN model may appear weak, because
governments are merely advisory, whilst in an international organisation
they run the show." ICANN is, he opined, based on the novel idea of
collaboration between interested parties. He noted that both models have
their advantages and disadvantages, and that governments need to learn to
operate within both models. 

(Monika Ermert)

(lghp[9])

<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center> 

URL of this Article:
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/111914 

Links in this Article:
  [1] http://www.itu.int/
  [2] http://www.icann.org
  [3]
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/OECD-member-states-throw-their-weight-beh
ind-IPv6--/110960
  [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Networking
  [5] http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/
  [6] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html
  [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSIS
  [8] http://www.intgovforum.org/
  [9] mailto:lghp at heise-online.co.uk

Dear friends

find attached the statement of ITU DG Toure during the recent ICANN meeting
in Cairo and the discussion. This was a very interesting dialogue on the
concept and understanding of the principle of "multistakeholderism". A very
good piece whith very clear and frank language which will certainly provoke
discussion and could be an interesting starting point for a new conceptual
debate on what "multistakholderism" is, why we witness a clash of cultures
in Internet policy development and how the old model of an hierachical top
down IG organisation and the new model of a network bottom up MS
organisation can or can not collaborate and coexist in the global diplomacy
of the 21st century.  

Wolfgang

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1669 - Release Date: 9/12/2008
2:18 PM

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20081110/abce3330/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance