[governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Sat Nov 8 05:41:16 EST 2008
Siva and all,
Lets all try to remember, or should I say be more accurate, that
the bulk of the work done on PKI was and still is done at the
IETF, not the ITU. The ITU was a "late bloomer" to PKI.
For instance see: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pkix-charter.html
So we all should be very careful concerning attributions...
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang Kleinwaehter and All,
>
> Here are my comments on the Speech at the ICANN Meeting in Cairo, 6
> November 2008 by Hamadoun Toure, Secretary General of the ITU. When I
> read what I wrote, I am surprised that some of these comments sound
> intense. Part of what is written might not even be fair, but I am
> posting it as written. Please take this sufficiently factored down,
> because I was not there at Cairo to "feel" his speech. The comments
> are based on my impressions from the speech transcript. It is based on
> the superficial knowledge that the ITU places the interests of the
> Telecom companies and the Governments paramount.
>
> Also, I have picked up portions of the Secretary General's speech for
> comments. In this critique, what is missing are positive remarks that
> are due. It is positive as a gesture on the part of the ITU Secretary
> General to have extended an arm to work with ICANN and to pronounce a
> desire to be committed to the mutli-stakeholder approach. But in this
> message I have chosen to read between the lines of the Secretary
> General's transcript, just to raise some points for discussion.
>
> Comments:
> since 1865, since the creation of the telegraph. And we are very proud
> of the way the organization has been able to adapt itself over the
> years and decades and centuries, from telegraph to telephone to
> teletypewriters, to radio and television. We are talking about digital
> broadcasting now. And very soon, 3D television. We are talking about
> the emergence of new technologies.
>
> ITU adopts itself to own all inter-human communication in any form.
>
> I was telling to many people from developing countries who were
> fighting for Internet governance: "Before you get the governance, get
> the Internet first."
>
> Yes, that allows various interests to give shape to the internet in a
> manner that is most advantageous for commerce and government. After
> that any process of debate on Governance wouldn't be able to reverse
> the practices established.
>
>
> ICANN is just ten years old but it's done a great job.
>
>
> Yes, ITU is older. We notice that the ITU has governed Communications
> around the world for over 143 years.
>
> we had a very successful WSIS. For the first time, a UN body was
> organizing a summit, where you didn't have demonstrations outside.
>
> Business and Government kept the Civil Society locked out in several
> international conventions that were either in the Governments'
> Diplomatic Territory or Business' Commercial Territory. The Internet
> is Civil Sphere and the Governments were the latecomers. What ought to
> have been said here is that the Civil Society included Government and
> Business and not vice versa.
>
> Every time a Web browser establishes a secure connection to a server,
> ITU's work on PKIs, public key infrastructures, and encryption keys,
> is used. Our pioneering work on electronic authentication enabled
> jurisdictions around the world to recognize e-mail as legal documents
> and to give legal studies to electronic signatures.
>
> I can't help notice that most of the work that the ITU has done
> relates to "authentication", "security" etc. to enable "jurisdiction".
> Isn't the ITU working on making the Internet what it is not?
>
> We [ITU and ICANN] just have to learn to know each other better so
> that we can like each other and work together. And the main reason why
> I'm here is that is my motto: "
>
> This sounds dangerous. The DOC-supervised ICANN and the
> inter-governmental ITU aligned together !
>
> IGF is just going around and around, avoiding the topics, and becomes
> sometimes a waste of time.
>
> I agree. I fully agree. One reason is the limitation of the UN mandate
> to the IGF. IGF does not even have recommendary 'powers' and the IGF
> process is in a sense a huge distraction away from the policy changes
> and new Internet legislations that get enacted in bits and pieces
> (leading to an untold comprehensive whole) in different parts of the
> world - for e.g. the move by UK to direct ISPs to retain traffic
> records for two years. IGF requires a complete re-redesign.
>
> Next year, ITU willorganize the World Policy Forum, which addresses a
> number of Internet-related public-policy issues, ranging from
> cybersecurity and data protection to multilingualism and the ongoing
> development of Internet.
>
> World Policy Forum? For the ITU to psychologically claim its stake as
> the ICT super-authority?
>
> I hope you will not tell me here, "Don't talk about Internet." ....
> we need to talk about it. And you shouldn't see us as an enemy. I
> always said that I have enough on my plate in ITU and there is no need
> to add more.
>
> I don't get the feeling that ITU is content with its sphere of
> influence.
>
> If you want an Internet connection for a business or a house, they
> will ask you first if you have a telephone line.
>
> Why do I need an ITU regulated and monitored phone line to qualify for
> Internet Access? Why isn't the Community doing enough to bring in
> alternate technologies?
> During the debates of the WSIS, when people were talking about
> Internet governance, I was telling them, "Get Internet first before
> you talk about getting the governance of it." I was giving simple
> example, comparing Internet and telecommunications to trucks or cars
> and highways. It's not because you own the highways that you're going
> to own all the trucks or cars running on them, and certainly not the
> goods that they are transporting, or vice versa. It's a simple
> analogy.
>
> Great. The road analogy isn't all that perfect as an analogy for the
> Internet. I will let it go to say that those who owns the roads get to
> decide who rides and who doesn't and gets to decide what to charge as
> toll fee.
>
> .... the relationship between the Internet and the telecommunication
> world... And they are condemned to work together. It's a condemned
> marriage. So better enjoy it. If you know that you're not going to get
> divorced in any case because you're condemned to live together, you
> better find a way to enjoy each other, and have kids in the process.
>
> The Internet CAN technically divorce the telecoms or even scale up to
> include telecoms services as part of the internet. It is a condemned
> marriage alright, but if one partner is too difficult and drives the
> other to the wall, a divorce isn't technically infeasible.
>
> It has been alleged in some corners of the ITU that ITU wishes to
> govern the Internet. And I have specifically said that I categorically
> deny that.
>
> When someone in government or someone connected to government "denies"
> something, it is always true.
>
> And I say today again to you, it is not the case. My intention as
> Secretary-General of ITU is not to govern the Internet. But we need to
> work together, because there are developing countries that are in need
> of access. At the end of this year, we'll have four billion mobile
> telephones in the world. While we try to bridge the gap in telephony,
> we have to ensure that no new gap is created in Internet and no new
> gap is created in broadband for us to help other sectors to meet the
> Millennium Development Goals. Therefore, there is a need for these two
> societies to work together. Almost half of the people in this room are
> very active participants in the ITU. And, therefore, I think there is
> room for us to know each other and to understand.
>
> ITU's role as a multilateral forum for debate is to serve as a source
> of impartial expert information and guidance, just as we have done for
> nearly 145 years. We strive to help all parties work together to
> clarify the issues and build consensus on the most effective ways of
> promoting the evolution and uptake of this powerful resource. And we
> have that capability. We are proud of that culture. It's the only
> organization where you will have countries that are at war on other
> fronts, are supporting each other with common resolutions, without the
> people supporting those resolutions being fired. I'm proud to say that
> we are the only organization where you have Iran supporting "his
> friends", I quote, of the United States, or vice versa and the people
> who have supported that are still alive. It happens on a daily basis.
> We never had any Palestinian-Israeli crisis inside the ITU. They share
> spectrums. So we are in a position to work with everyone, because we
> have a technical approach to issues.
>
> Impressive. But aren't you bidding to take over the internet by saying
> all this ?
>
> ITU is also actively encouraging the industry-wide move to IPv6.
> Again, looking on the Web all of last week, I've seen numerous attacks
> on the ITU for having pronounced the world IPv6.This is a concern for
> all of us. Every mobile phone will have an IP address, every fridge,
> every car, it's an inevitable thing.
>
> What concerns me is the fact that IPV6 seems to have obviated (or made
> impossible) Network Address Translation. This means that everything
> that I ever say on the Internet is linked to my unique, unchangeable
> IPV6 address. My computer has an unchanging, permanent IPV6 address.
> My refrigerator and my MP4 player will have a traceable IPV6 address.
> Where is my privacy? Perhaps I will be able to borrow my
> refrigerator's IPV6 address to send an email to my top secret girl
> friend and in case my wife gets hold of that message I could blame it
> on the refrigerator? (this comment in particular without in-depth
> knowledge of the technical architecture of IPV6)
>
> In 2005, WSIS mandated ITU to take a lead role in building confidence
> and security in the use of ICTs. I put in place a high-level expert
> group last year to study the issue and report to the council, with the
> final report this year. We are gaining a momentum as we move steadily
> towards agreements on an international set of principles and
> best-practice approaches that countries around the world can follow to
> promote cybersecurity.
>
> Security concerns are center stage on the ITU agenda, pushing the need
> to build (user) Confidence out of view. What has ITU done on the
> privacy front, to protest against legislations such as directives by
> UK to ISPs to retain email logs for two years or directives by
> governments to facilitate recording of mobile phone conversations?
>
> Estonian network was down for two days. .. And during the uprising
> between Georgia and Russia, we have noticed a large number of botnets
> or cyber attacks between the two countries. That is scary. ...
>
> Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that it is sometimes
> Governments that cause or engineer some of the major cyber incidents?
>
> Our children, who spend most of their time in cyberspace, are not
> taught the basic behaviours in the cyberspace. When they go out in the
> street, we tell them, "Be careful. Don't talk to strangers, don't
> accept candy from someone you don't know. It could be a drug that
> could kill you." But they're out there in cyberspace without telling
> them what to do or how to behave.
>
> Yes, we will make them paranoid.
>
> The potential of the Internet to accelerate social and economic
> development in the world's poorest regions is perhaps its greatest
> asset. I hope you will support ITU in our ongoing effort to see that
> everyone everywhere has a chance to benefit from that potential for
> the betterment of our planet, and for humankind, for all humankind.
>
> Sounds rhetorical.
>
> We will never counter terrorism if we don't have a harmonized way of
> tracing back the IP address. ...
>
> How would I trust the Law and Order agencies to restrict use of these
> technologies only against terrorists and criminals and not against the
> unsuspecting citizens ?
>
>
> ZAHID JAMIL, DNS Resolution Center Pakistan:
>
> I am a lawyer from Pakistan. Your Excellency, I heard you talk about
> the important role that ITU can play in everything from IPv6, the
> coordination of the IP-based networks, cybersecurity, privacy, data
> protection, cybersecurity, cyberterrorism, multilingualism, IDNs, a
> whole bunch of things. My only question is, to what extent do you
> think ITU would have any restrictions, because it seems it would
> probably become the regulator in convergence of everything. So is
> there a limitation you can see as far as the ITU's scope?
>
> Touche'
>
> WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER, University of Aarhus
>
> what is the future of civil society in the ITU? ITU has nearly 200
> member states and more than 700 private sector members. When civil
> society becomes an equal partner in this setting?
>
> Is it really possible to believe that the Civil Society would be
> represented at the ITU so broadly as to balance the 191 member srates
> and 700 private sector companies? ITU is ITU. It could come to the IGF
> to represent business and government. If Civil Society focuses its
> effort on getting better represented at the ITU, some day the IGF
> could become a part of the ITU.
>
> HAMMADOUN TOURE, Secretary General of the ITU
>
> Government is in an advisory role. Advisory role! You advise me and I
> am free to take your advice?
>
> Advice from Government always comes with the subtle posture of "It is
> just an advice or a suggestion, but remember where it comes from"
>
> During the WSIS process, we had a problem that some member states have
> genuinely raised. We have countries like China. During a PrepCom in
> Japan we spent three days out of four not working because there were
> some so-called civil society, NGO that were government officials from
> Taiwan. The Chinese delegation came with their photos and information
> on them from the Web that they are government officials, and they
> registered as NGOs. It's a problem.
>
> Thank you for bringing that up. This is really an issue about how the
> Civil Society is constituted at least in parts. We need to clean up a
> little bit.
>
> HAMMADOUN TOURE, Secretary General of the ITU
>
> Now, let's be clear. Government cannot get into individual people's
> privacy.
>
> Please, don't.
>
>
> ...... I'm telling you my intention is not, from ITU, to try and
> take over Internet.
>
> When someone in government or someone from an inter-governmental
> organization talks of an absence of an intention, there is always an
> intention.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Interested in analysis of how we can avoid this. Certainly
> some parties wish to avoid meaningful discussion, and are we
> diplomatically sweeping under the carpet >all the important
> issues (lest anyone take offence?)
>
> Ian, you point to an important issue, and danger.
>
> Some of us have been arguing for long that the IGF is civil
> society's best bet in many ways. It is a new-age
> organization that is relatively representative of people and
> groups across the world, and still has been able to maintain
> some distance from strong statist control on the one side
> and corporate control on the other.
>
> However, many others in the civil society, including within
> the IGC, have been over-cautious in putting our weight
> behind strengthening the IGF in all ways that we can
> whether the issue has been of some substantive (and not
> merely advisorial) capacity of the core IGF group (currently
> named MAG) or doing substantive inter-sessional work and
> giving some kind of real, if non-binding, outputs on key IG
> issues.
>
> I think that we as a group may need to revisit our positions
> on this issue, or al least discuss them to see if new
> directions need to be taken in view of current and emergent
> realities.
>
> It is a fact that the IGF may be in real trouble, and in the
> danger of being sidelined as an annual conference that no
> one of any real importance takes any note of. We must review
> what would it mean in terms of civil society and progressive
> interests. In light of such a review we may need to have
> clearer common positions of how we want to engage with the
> IGF, and how we want to see it evolve. Such a review is an
> even more urgent imperative in view of the forthcoming
> process of IGF review which will start in earnest
> immediately after the IGF, Hyderabad. What gets said and
> discussed at Hyderabad may have some important implications
> for this review.
>
> Parminder
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> From: gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org
> [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:02 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET'
> Cc: 'WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks
> Governance'Subject: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless
> forced marriage Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> The telling statement from ITU being "I am personally of the
> opinion that the IGF is continuously going round in circles
> and avoiding issues it is becoming more and more a waste
> of time."
>
> Interested in analysis of how we can avoid this. Certainly
> some parties wish to avoid meaningful discussion, and are we
> diplomatically sweeping under the carpet all the important
> issues (lest anyone take offence?)
>
> My fear here is that the outcomes if IGF doesn't succeed in
> addressing the real issues are worse than those if it does
> succeed. Balkanisation or globalisation? Take your pick
.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Dr. Francis MUGUET [mailto:muguet at mdpi.net]
> Sent: 09 November 2008 15:44
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Wolfgang
> Cc: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance
> Subject: ITU and ICANN a loveless forced marriage Re:
> [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> Dear Wolfgang
>
> Interesting to notice a press analysis of Touré's speech,
> most notably about the IGF.
>
> The statement from Touré has not been unnoticed.
>
> Coming back to what we do with ICANN, we also participate
> actively in the work of Internet Governance Forum, which was
> established as the result of the multistakeholder
> deliberations at the WSIS. I personally believe that the IGF
> is just going around and around, avoiding the topics, and
> becomes sometimes a waste of time. We need to address issues
> frankly and try to solve them. And that's why I thought I
> should be here to talk to you here, so that we learn to know
> each other better. Next year, ITU will organize the World
> Policy Forum, which addresses a number of Internet-related
> public-policy issues, ranging from cybersecurity and data
> protection to multilingualism and the ongoing development of
> Internet. I hope you will not tell me here, "Don't talk
> about Internet." It's an issue for everyone.
>
> Best Francis
>
> ---------------------------------
> http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/print/1119147 November
> 2008, 12:30
>
> ITU and ICANN a loveless forced marriage
>
> ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré has called for better
> collaboration between the International Telecommunication
> Union[1] (ITU) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers[2] (ICANN). "Our members have
> unnecessarily attacked and criticised each other and I think
> we should put an end to that," said Touré on Thursday at the
> 33rd ICANN meeting in Cairo. According to Touré, the two
> organisations need to get to know each other better and
> learn to love each other, as telecommunications and the
> internet are ultimately condemned to a "forced marriage".
>
> Despite the outstretched hand, the ITU Secretary General did
> not spare the criticism in his first appearance at an ICANN
> meeting. Touré made it clear to the assembled experts that
> he saw his organisation as playing the dominant role in the
> forced marriage and made his opinion of the other party
> clear provocatively describing ICANN's Governmental
> Advisory Committee as purely cosmetic.
>
> The depth of the chasm between the two the UN
> organisation, which has its roots in the telecommunications
> world, and the quasi-internet-regulator ICANN was stressed
> by a series of further statements in the half-hour talk
> given by the head of the ITU. Touré repeatedly spoke of the
> "war" between the two organisations. According to Touré, who
> was elected in 2006, "The best way to win a war, is to
> prevent it."
>
> In the course of his 'marriage proposal', he referred
> extensively to the ITU's outstanding role. Key topics for
> his organisation, he noted, include the internationalisation
> of domains, something with which ICANN is currently engaged,
> the transition to IPv6[3], standardisation for the
> all-IP Next Generation Network[4] (NGN), cyber-security, the
> fight against online terrorism and child protection online.
>
> Touré rejected concerns that the ITU was appointing itself
> as global regulator of internet resources and processes,
> "The ITU has clear boundaries. We do not perform the
> operative business." However, he underlined the
> organisation's demand, set out in its Cybersecurity
> Agenda[5], to be responsible for a global framework in the
> fight against online terrorism and criminality. He also
> defended the controversial IP traceback[6] standard
> proposal. "There is not one country which isn't doing it,
> it's just that each country is doing it differently," said
> Touré.
>
> Touré also rejected criticism that the ITU operates behind
> closed doors. He stated that the organisation has around 700
> sector members from the telecommunications industry and also
> admits NGOs as members. Touré also praised the ITU's
> openness a nod to the World Summit on the Information
> Society[7] (WSIS). The summit, organised under ITU auspices,
> is, according to Touré, the first UN summit at which civil
> society has also been invited to sit at the table, rather
> than demonstrating outside.
>
> In the same breath, Touré expressed strong criticism of
> the Internet Governance Forum[8] (IGF), which was called
> into being by the WSIS, "I am personally of the opinion that
> the IGF is continuously going round in circles and avoiding
> issues it is becoming more and more a waste of time."
> Therefore, the ITU is planning a global forum for internet
> policy next year as a rival event.
>
> Touré also fired a further undiplomatic broadside at the
> work performed by governments within ICANN. "The
> Governmental Advisory Committee is ICANN's weak point," said
> Touré. His criticism was directed at the advisory function
> of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in developing
> rules for the domain name system. "If someone gives me
> advice, I am free to take it or leave it." The ICANN's GAC
> is therefore nothing more than "cosmetic", noted Touré
> forthrightly.
>
> In a short statement following Touré's speech, the Brazilian
> government representative on the GAC demanded, in the name
> of his and the Argentinian government, the "strengthening of
> the GAC". Latvian diplomat Janis Karklins, re-elected as GAC
> chairman, by contrast noted that the ITU and ICANN operated
> according to very different political models, "From the
> viewpoint of an international organisation, the ICANN model
> may appear weak, because governments are merely advisory,
> whilst in an international organisation they run the show."
> ICANN is, he opined, based on the novel idea of
> collaboration between interested parties. He noted that both
> models have their advantages and disadvantages, and that
> governments need to learn to operate within both models.
>
> (Monika Ermert)
>
> (lghp[9])
> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
> URL of this Article:
> http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/111914
>
> Links in this Article:
> [1] http://www.itu.int/
> [2] http://www.icann.org
> [3]
> http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/OECD-member-states-throw-their-weight-behind-IPv6--/110960
>
> [4]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Networking
> [5] http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/
> [6] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html
> [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSIS
> [8] http://www.intgovforum.org/
> [9] mailto:lghp at heise-online.co.uk
>
>
>
>
> Dear friends
>
>
>
> find attached the statement of ITU DG Toure during the recent ICANN meeting in Cairo and the discussion. This was a very interesting dialogue on the concept and understanding of the principle of "multistakeholderism". A very good piece whith very clear and frank language which will certainly provoke discussion and could be an interesting starting point for a new conceptual debate on what "multistakholderism" is, why we witness a clash of cultures in Internet policy development and how the old model of an hierachical top down IG organisation and the new model of a network bottom up MS organisation can or can not collaborate and coexist in the global diplomacy of the 21st century.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1669 - Release
> Date: 9/12/2008 2:18 PM
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list