SV: [governance] ITU IG Resolution

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Dear list,
 
it is worth to "study" the final ITU PP Press release. 
 
http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html
 
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. 
 
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."

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."

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 <https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html> ." 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. 
 
Best wishes (and prepare your 2009 Travel Budget for two big Internet Governance Conferences: IGF in Cairo and WTPF elswhere).
 
wolfgang
 
 
 
________________________________

Fra: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
Sendt: ma 27-11-2006 02:25
Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller; jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Cc: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Emne: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution



Jeanette, Adam, Milton, everyone,

Re the USG stance re ccTLDs and sovereign nations, remember I
deconstructed that on this list right after the Dept of Commerce's NTIA
issued its '4 principles' statement June '05:

USG now recognizes governments of nations have final say over their own
ccTLDs, not usg or icann.   Or whomever happens to be operating it at
the moment. That's realpolitik 101 of ccTLDs these days.

June 05 the US DOC/NTIA said: " Governments have legitimate interest in
the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD).  The
United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy
and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD.
As such, the United States is committed to working with the
international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the
fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's
DNS."

My impression is ICANN has gotten the message and is working harder to
assist governments with ccTLD concerns of one sort or anothers. ICANN
will need more support from governments, not just USG, in the next moves
in the chess game as Wolfgang put it, than in the past.

(And of course, if explicit pro-IPR/UDRP language can be inserted in
bilateral trade agreements, all the better from the perspective of this
US admin and oh yeah the usual suspect powerhouse DC lobby groups.)

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 11/24/2006 12:10 PM >>>


Milton Mueller schrieb:
> Adam:
> These free trade agreements that attempt to globalize US anti-privacy

> Whois policies are truly evil things, and indicate the degree to
which
> US of A policy is driven by intellectual property interests.
>
> But I am not sure what they have to do with the ITU, except that the
> USA has been promoting WTO and trade agreements as a way of
bypassing
> ITU power over the international telecom sector for a decade now.

It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN and assumes that contracting
governments have full control over the management of their ccTLD. One
wonders what the ccNSO is for if the US government can negotiate all
relevant matters in bilateral contracts, no?
jeanette

>
>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/24/2006 6:04 AM >>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
> wrote:
>>>  That's an amazing resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can
write
> six
>>>  pages on the management of Internet domain names and addresses
and
> not
>>>  mention ICANN even once!
>> Amazing perhaps, but also entirely predictable; did anyone really
> believe
>> the spin that the Tunis Agenda constituted a unanimous
> intergovernmental
>> bear hug for ICANN?  Moreover, while the TA called for enhanced
> cooperation
>> on public policies to be started by the UN
> Secretary-General---involving all
>> relevant organizations and stakeholders---by the end of the first
> quarter of
>> 2006, it seems that not much has happened besides some sotto vocci,
>> selective bilateral/small-n consultations.  Not surprising then
that
>> governments would want to see the agenda carried forward on a
> multilateral
>> basis in the ITU.  Of course, the "involving all stakeholders"
> language may
>> be of little practical consequence in the ITU without reforms that
> will not
>> be forthcoming in the near term.
>>
>> Some other notable bits of word-craft for deconstruction:
>>
>> "the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the
> Internet,
>> taking into account the requirements, features and interoperability
> of
>> next-generation networks (NGN);"
>>
>> " Member States represent the interests of the population of the
> country or
>> territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;"
>
>
>
> This is an interesting problem.  The US (USTR) is writing clauses
> into bilateral free trade agreements requiring the ccTLDs of the
> country signing the FTA to adopt some form of dispute resolution
> policy. Example, words from the US/AU agreement goes on to also
> indicate whois "each Party shall require that the management of its
> country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate
> procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles
> established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy.
>
> 2. Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide

> online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact
> information for domain-name registrants."
>
> Search string such as "ccTLD free trade agreement" in google finds a
> bunch.
>
> I would think one way to read this is that US also thinks member
> states control ccTLDs and can enforce rules  on them.  Not what I
> thought the US position was in WSIS.  But I might be getting
> hot&bothered over a non-issue...
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> " the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other
> Internet
>> resources within the mandate of ITU."  [phrase appears five times
in
> the
>> text]
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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


____________________________________________________________
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