SV: [governance] ITU IG Resolution

[Mawaki Chango]

Intersting indeed. At the current pace of the senior ICANN and IGF
staff courting so assiduously each other (uh...I mean cross
participating in each other's meetings with signs of support, etc.)
one may be attempted to predict that we will see both wedded before
current IGF mandate. Will then ITU become the chef de rang of the
neo-rebels (and stubborns) or of the neo-conservatists? and where
will the ultimate CS resistants be found? Interesting, indeed...

Mawaki

--- Wolfgang Kleinwächter
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> 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
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________
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