Dear Wolfgang, dear all,<br><br>Just some clarifications you may find interesting on "enhanced cooperation" and the ITU plenipotentiary Resolution 102 adopted in Antalya. <br><br>I hope these few elements will be useful to help clarify some of the
aspects discussed in this thread, as I know it is hard to make sense of
the decisions adopted in Antalya from the outside :-)<br><br>As you know, there is a distinction within the Tunis Agenda between para 69 that recognizes the need for "enhanced cooperation, in the future" and paragraph 71 that refers to "the process towards enhanced cooperation". The first one is a goal, the second is the way to achieve it.
<br><br>The full text of paragraph 69 is : "We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation, in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues." The expression "government's roles and responsibilities" of course refers to paragraph 35 a) of Tunis, and specifically its second sentence. <br><br>Paragraph 70 further indicates that "such cooperation should include the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical internet resources".
<br><br>Paragraph 71 is actually composed of two distinct sentences. The first one, and most quoted, says : "The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and responsive to innovation". This transversal process is not clearly defined and interrogations among governments as well as civil society remain as to what has actually begun under the auspices of Nitin Desai.
<br><br>The second sentence, less often referred to, is : "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation".
<br><br>This second sentence has been interpreted during the negociations in Antalya as meaning an "internal" process within relevant organizations, in that case the ITU. This is the rationale for the important paragraphs 5 and 6 of the part "resolves to instruct the Secretary General" of Resolution 102. According to these paragraphs, the ITU SG is instructed :
<br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">5 "to take the necessary steps in ITU's own internal process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet as expressed in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda"
<br><br>6 "as a concrete step, to organize consultations on these issues among the ITU Membership and other relevant stakeholders, in order to prepare and submit proposals, based on those consultations and contributions from the ITU Membership, to the 2007 session of the Council, through the Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS). "
<br></div><br>The exact modalities of these consultations during 2007 naturally have to be determined and suggestions on that topic will certainly be useful. <br><br>It is the occasion to mention that, in parallel, the ITU Plenipot has adopted another Resolution (GT/PLEN/7) establishing a Working Group to conduct a "study on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union related to the World Summit on the Information society", with rather detailed terms of reference that include the "draft[ing] of possible amendments to the ITU basic texts that might be needed in order to facilitate the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of ITU related to WSIS". This parallel process can play a role in discussing appropriate modalities for the consultations above. But there again, the process and the working methods of the group have to be established and these things do take time in the ITU framework.
<br><br>Last but not least, the formulation "management of Internet domain names and addresses and other internet resources within the mandate of ITU" was a compromise formulation between governments who wanted to keep the limitative expression "domain names and addresses" and those who wanted the broader expression of "Internet resources". The addition of the expression "within the mandate of ITU" is a caveat that on the one hand limits the potentially extensive expression "Internet resources" within the boundaries of the existing ITU mandate (hence no mission creep) and on the other hand allows for an evolution of thie scope of action, should the ITU mandate be refined in that respect in future ITU Plenipots.
<br><br>In general terms, the ITU Plenipot in Antalya was, among other things, an exercise in translating the results of WSIS in the ITU framework. <br><br>I'll be in Sao Paolo next week for the ICANN meeting and will be happy to discuss those issues further with those who will attend.
<br><br>Looking forward to seeing some of you there. <br><br>Best to you all<br><br>Bertrand<br><br><br> <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/27/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Wolfgang Kleinwächter</b> <<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">
wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dear list,<br><br>it is worth to "study" the final ITU PP Press release.
<br><br><a href="http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html">http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html</a><br><br>Under the discussed items (Section II: Looking Ahead), which sets the priorities for the next four years, next to WSIS implementation with regard to Action Lines there is the "Internet enhanced cooperation" as a second priority. What does it mean? Priority six is the convening of a World Telecommunication Policy Forum in 2009 for Internet related public policy issues. It says "such as intreroperabiloity and convergence" but under such a general healdine everything can be disucssed. is this a counter-forum to the IGF, dominated by governments without civil society? The study process whether CS will become included or not in ITU will be over only in 2010 and then ITU will make a decision how to invite CS. Obvioulsy they want to build the house first and then invite the inhabitants.
<br><br>And here is what Mr. Toure said at the closing press conference: "Along with my dedicated staff and colleagues at ITU, I will build bridges to a digital future through the active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society dealing with ICT. I believe that teamwork is the key to success."
<br><br>With regard to IG he added: "The membership has set a task to deal with International Public Policy issues related to the internet in which ITU has been involved for many years in developing standards and providing services." Responding to a question on ITU's role in internet governance and management of the internet, Dr Touré said, "ITU is not looking at taking over internet governance. ITU very well positioned to manage internet resources and will continue to contribute to the growth of the internet in its area of expertise and along with all stakeholders."
<br><br>Also the language of the headline of the Press Release is interesting and worth to study. It says "ITU Conference signals enhanced international cooperation in ICT - Plenipotentiary Conference endorses expanded mandate for ITU <
<a href="https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html">https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html</a>> ." What does it mean? What is the "expanded mandate". Is "Enhanced Cooperation on Internet Governance" as defined bt the Tunis Summit now part of a bigger process of "enhanced international cooperation in ICT". Is Tunis subordinated? Is there a linkage? Does somebody think that ICANN is a subsidary body of the ITU with limited responsibilities for some elements of the DNS like new gTLDs? Toure says that ITU is not looking at taking over Internet Governance but is "very well positioned to manage internet resources". Very interesting and slippery language which gives a lot of space for interpretation.
<br><br>Best wishes (and prepare your 2009 Travel Budget for two big Internet Governance Conferences: IGF in Cairo and WTPF elswhere).<br><br>wolfgang<br><br><br><br>________________________________<br><br>Fra: Lee McKnight [mailto:
<a href="mailto:LMcKnigh@syr.edu">LMcKnigh@syr.edu</a>]<br>Sendt: ma 27-11-2006 02:25<br>Til: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Milton Mueller; <a href="mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de">
jeanette@wz-berlin.de</a><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a><br>Emne: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution<br><br><br><br>Jeanette, Adam, Milton, everyone,<br><br>Re the USG stance re ccTLDs and sovereign nations, remember I
<br>deconstructed that on this list right after the Dept of Commerce's NTIA<br>issued its '4 principles' statement June '05:<br><br>USG now recognizes governments of nations have final say over their own<br>ccTLDs, not usg or icann. Or whomever happens to be operating it at
<br>the moment. That's realpolitik 101 of ccTLDs these days.<br><br>June 05 the US DOC/NTIA said: " Governments have legitimate interest in<br>the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The<br>United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy
<br>and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD.<br>As such, the United States is committed to working with the<br>international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the<br>fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's
<br>DNS."<br><br>My impression is ICANN has gotten the message and is working harder to<br>assist governments with ccTLD concerns of one sort or anothers. ICANN<br>will need more support from governments, not just USG, in the next moves
<br>in the chess game as Wolfgang put it, than in the past.<br><br>(And of course, if explicit pro-IPR/UDRP language can be inserted in<br>bilateral trade agreements, all the better from the perspective of this<br>US admin and oh yeah the usual suspect powerhouse DC lobby groups.)
<br><br>Lee<br><br>Prof. Lee W. McKnight<br>School of Information Studies<br>Syracuse University<br>+1-315-443-6891office<br>+1-315-278-4392 mobile<br><br>>>> <a href="mailto:jeanette@wz-berlin.de">jeanette@wz-berlin.de
</a> 11/24/2006 12:10 PM >>><br><br><br>Milton Mueller schrieb:<br>> Adam:<br>> These free trade agreements that attempt to globalize US anti-privacy<br><br>> Whois policies are truly evil things, and indicate the degree to
<br>which<br>> US of A policy is driven by intellectual property interests.<br>><br>> But I am not sure what they have to do with the ITU, except that the<br>> USA has been promoting WTO and trade agreements as a way of
<br>bypassing<br>> ITU power over the international telecom sector for a decade now.<br><br>It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN and assumes that contracting<br>governments have full control over the management of their ccTLD. One
<br>wonders what the ccNSO is for if the US government can negotiate all<br>relevant matters in bilateral contracts, no?<br>jeanette<br><br>><br>>>>> <a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a> 11/24/2006 6:04 AM >>>
<br>>> Hi,<br>>><br>>> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret Fausett" <<a href="mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro">bfausett@internet.law.pro</a>><br>> wrote:<br>>>> That's an amazing resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can
<br>write<br>> six<br>>>> pages on the management of Internet domain names and addresses<br>and<br>> not<br>>>> mention ICANN even once!<br>>> Amazing perhaps, but also entirely predictable; did anyone really
<br>> believe<br>>> the spin that the Tunis Agenda constituted a unanimous<br>> intergovernmental<br>>> bear hug for ICANN? Moreover, while the TA called for enhanced<br>> cooperation<br>>> on public policies to be started by the UN
<br>> Secretary-General---involving all<br>>> relevant organizations and stakeholders---by the end of the first<br>> quarter of<br>>> 2006, it seems that not much has happened besides some sotto vocci,<br>
>> selective bilateral/small-n consultations. Not surprising then<br>that<br>>> governments would want to see the agenda carried forward on a<br>> multilateral<br>>> basis in the ITU. Of course, the "involving all stakeholders"
<br>> language may<br>>> be of little practical consequence in the ITU without reforms that<br>> will not<br>>> be forthcoming in the near term.<br>>><br>>> Some other notable bits of word-craft for deconstruction:
<br>>><br>>> "the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the<br>> Internet,<br>>> taking into account the requirements, features and interoperability<br>> of<br>>> next-generation networks (NGN);"
<br>>><br>>> " Member States represent the interests of the population of the<br>> country or<br>>> territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;"<br>><br>><br>><br>> This is an interesting problem. The US (USTR) is writing clauses
<br>> into bilateral free trade agreements requiring the ccTLDs of the<br>> country signing the FTA to adopt some form of dispute resolution<br>> policy. Example, words from the US/AU agreement goes on to also<br>
> indicate whois "each Party shall require that the management of its<br>> country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate<br>> procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles<br>
> established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy.<br>><br>> 2. Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide<br><br>> online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact
<br>> information for domain-name registrants."<br>><br>> Search string such as "ccTLD free trade agreement" in google finds a<br>> bunch.<br>><br>> I would think one way to read this is that US also thinks member
<br>> states control ccTLDs and can enforce rules on them. Not what I<br>> thought the US position was in WSIS. But I might be getting<br>> hot&bothered over a non-issue...<br>><br>> Adam<br>><br>
><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>>> " the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other<br>> Internet<br>>> resources within the mandate of ITU." [phrase appears five times<br>
in<br>> the<br>>> text]<br>>><br>>> Cheers,<br>>><br>>> Bill<br>>><br>>><br>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>>><br>>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
</a><br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org
</a><br>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>><br>> For all list information and functions, see:
<br>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org
</a><br>><br>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>____________________________________________________________
<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>____________________________________________________________
<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br><br>____________________________________________________________
<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></div>
<br>