[governance] ITU IG Resolution
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Nov 30 07:04:14 EST 2006
> will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC prepare
> to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this
> process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva
> Principles on IG can be usefully applied?
I have been raising these questions in IGC (and other forums) but they have
generally received a muted response. I think the civil society engaging with
IG issues need to give up its self-doubts in frontally facing the 'public
policy' question in IG and the issue of institutional arrangements adequate
to this purpose. These issues will not go away, everyone always knew this,
and every passing day brings increasing evidence that there are important
public policy issues that are best dealt at global levels - it often serves
the public interest better if they are addressed at global levels, rather
than at national, or bi-lateral levels (see posts on US trade deals and
ccTLD dispute resolution mechanisms). Just one company, Google, it seems
takes on a legal suit at the rate of at least one per day, and each of these
is in its ad hoc way setting public policy precedents that have implications
for all of us.
And now since (1) the issue (public policy in IG and its global
institutional arrangements) will not go away, and (2) it has tremendous
public interest implications (which the IGC espouses), we need to explore
the reason and benefits of our not engaging with them. Is it strategic to
postpone this engagement as much as possible? Does postponement lessens the
danger of what are our principal fears from a relatively well
institutionalized IG global policy arrangement.
I see two basic fears (1) governments - we know which ones - will
institutionalize and legitimize policies of control, hyper-security,
censorship etc through such an arrangement (2) the new arrangement will
reduce the level of influence that CS or non-governmental sectors have on
Internet polices (or effects of their absence).
I think on both these counts situation will worsen as we delay in
institutionalizing a IG policy framework. The leverage that CS has on IG
policies has come largely from the fact that the Internet grew away from
governmental shadows and most governments did not understand Internet, and
because of it they were ready to both submit to a global framework, and
allow CS and other non-governmental sectors some influence on its policies.
this situation we know is changing to the detriment of the CS. Most
governments today understand Internet fairly well, and further growth of
Internet is mostly taking place under their covetous eyes. They may not
really need the CS for long, neither will they need a global framework of
cooperation. As more time lapses the global IG policies will be negotiated
by individual governments form a relative position of strength, and the
outcomes will be determined by complete realpolitik, rather than any
globally accepted values, and wide democratic participation.
I recently read this article - "Jefferson Rebuffed - The United States and
the Future of Internet Governance" - which speaks of a 'constitutional
moment' missed for IG when the EU's proposal in the last stages of WSIS for
working toward an institutional arrangement was missed. The same effort
survives as the mention of a process towards 'enhanced cooperation' in the
Tunis documents. I am not sure what IGC's response to the EU proposal was,
but I do not remember any enthusiasm. A similar attitude is seen among many
to the 'enhanced cooperation' part.
It is not surprising - since the context and the space of a public policy
institutional arrangement clearly and strongly exists - that various players
- presently ITU - will try to use this lever.
I agree with willie that IGC should firm up a proactive position in this
area. An early and pro-active engagement with the 'public policy and its
institutional arrangement issues' can still serve to give a greater handle
to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) public interest. It may be
better served through a global policy framework that is informed by globally
accepted norms and values, rather than ad hoc adjudications, or worse,
executive arbitrariness. And it will be better served if the CS takes a lead
and ensures (though, probably, not granted) a greater role in the whole
process..
Parminder
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:16 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
> Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution
>
> >so the ITU is mobilising for a process of enhanced cooperation which the
> UN SG failed to initiate in the first quarter of 2006.
>
> how is the ITU going to get the UN SG to do this: by getting member states
> into a process of discussion and agitation on the metter?
>
> what do we know about the incoming UN SG's views on the ITU - is he likely
> to allow the ITU to take a lead here?
>
> will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC prepare
> to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this
> process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva
> Principles on IG can be usefully applied?
>
> willie
> >
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061130/158f8461/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061130/158f8461/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list