[governance] IGF, Hyderabad
Anja
anja at itforchange.net
Mon Nov 10 02:32:22 EST 2008
Param, doesn't the IGF start on the 3rd?
Anja
Parminder wrote:
>
> Ian
>
> After posting a report on IGC at the IGF, the customary IGC meeting at
> IGF was the next thing I was going to suggest. How does the evening of
> 1^st (eve of IGF) or 2^nd (day 1 of the IGF) sound to all those who
> will be attending.
>
> I also was not seeking a statement from the IGC on the way IGF should
> evolve, only seeking to orient the group towards starting to engage
> with this issue. We have a workshop on this issue at the IGF, and IGF
> review process kind of starts from IGF, Hyderabad, onwards.
>
> I agree with what you say, Ian, on starting the election process.
>
> Parminder
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:47 AM
> *To:* 'Ian Peter'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'
> *Subject:* RE: OFFLIST RE: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless
> forced marriage Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> Oh ***.#### - will I ever learn to check address lines before pressing
> send. That was meant to be offlist….
>
> Anyway I guess that pre-empts a couple of things we need to discuss in
> any case.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> *Sent:* 09 November 2008 17:14
> *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Parminder'
> *Subject:* OFFLIST RE: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced
> marriage Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> Not sure we will get much of a statement on this together before
> Hyderabad, but should we organize a meeting of IGC say night before
> IGF starts to discuss some issues (we may have to get in early and be
> sure to avoid GigaNet and other events but something like that seems
> important). I’ll respond but will be interested to see what others say
> first.
>
> On another note I am going to begin to call for nominations for your
> co-ordinator position mid next week. I am going to release names
> periodically as they are received and certainly before Hyderabad. I am
> going to leave nominations open until post Hyderabad so that members
> can review nominees, talk to them, add names if no-one good is
> forthcoming etc before vote starts. I think that might be the way to
> get the best field.
>
> All the best,
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* 09 November 2008 16:51
> *To:* 'WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance';
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Dr. Francis MUGUET'
> *Subject:* RE: [Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage
> Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo
>
> >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/111914
>
> 7 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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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
>
> 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
>
--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
Senior Research Associate
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
www.ITforChange.net
www.IS-Watch.net
http://India.IS-Watch.net
____________________________________________________________
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