[governance] ITU IG Resolution

[Adam Peake]

At 12:46 PM -0200 11/25/06, wcurrie at apc.org wrote:
>  >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?


I think we should start with a letter to Nitin Desai asking him to 
report on what has happened over the year. The UN SG tasked him to 
look after the enhanced cooperation process. Simple letter from the 
new coordinators to Nitin asking for information on behalf of the 
caucus would be a good start, no?

Then once we know more, write to SG(s) or whatever is appropriate.

Not sure that reacting to the ITU is the right way to go without 
first trying to get a report on what's done to date.

Adam




>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

____________________________________________________________
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