SV: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

Wed Nov 19 04:27:21 EST 2008

Parminder

this is a good step which we have to take and I can aonly support your proposal. Bill who has raised this issue again and again is the right man at the right place to get a mandate from ther IGC and I will be ready to join the small "Drake Committee". Toure said in Cairo that the door is open for CS. Lets try to get it.

During WSIS (before Antalya) I had various disucssions with Richard Hill and Robert Shaw who already at this time tried to help to open the door for CS to ITU. Their proposal was to have a broad interpretation of "sector members" but one big barrier was the high fee which sector members have to pay. Antalya was one step in the right direction. The weakness of the process so far is, that the ITU Working Group which was established to explore the possibilities of CS involvement in ITU is open only for member states. CS has no voice (and certainly no vote) in this process. There are some reports of this WG to the ITU Council but a new decision can be made only by the next ITU Plenipotentiary Conference scheduled for Mexico in 2010.  So far the only way CS can become engaged is via sector membership. 

Toure said in Cairo that they now have abolished the fee for CS organizations which can proof that they are really non-commercial. But he said also that a CS application needs the surpport of the the relevant government of the member state where the CS is at home. Certainly this "governmental screening" does not work. Imagine if a CS organisation critizising its govenrment at home for stupid telecom policy has to go to the minister and ask for a signed letter of support for ITU sector membership?  This is nonsense. Even more, what about international / global CS units which operate as networks? Like the IGC? Which is the relevant administration? Is it the Indian govenrment because Parminder as the chair has Indian citizenship?   

I am following the debate since 1994 when the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Kyodo opened as first intergovernmental UN organisation its door to non-govenrmental units by establishing - into the constitution - a new membership category (with limited rights) which was called "sector membership".  This was really an innovation in international law. Other organisations working closely with NGOs - like UNESCO - do not have such a constitutional paragraph for "membership". NGOs in UNESCO are assoicated but are not members. The reason for the ITU to be "innovative" at this time was the privatization of telecommunication in many countries which lead to the disapperance of a lot of PTT ministries. ITU needed (just for survival) the new players (and their money). 

The aim should be that the ITU in Mexico extend this non-governmental membership status in the ITU to enable WSIS accredited CS entities to participate as non-commercial units without a fee. 

Why not to test it out and to ask for fee-free sector membership for the IGC under the present regime? Probably the "IGC Drake Committee" (IGC D.C.) could work on a proposal?

Wolfgang

________________________________

Fra: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sendt: on 19-11-2008 04:39
Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'; 'jlfullsack'
Cc: 'Fouad Bajwa'
Emne: RE: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

Bill and Jean-Louis,

We have been seeing some degree of concern over the lack of CS engagement with the increasing role that ITU plays in IG and in shaping the future of the Internet. Of course some of us have been expressing this concern for much longer.

I remember that when I heard a passionate intervention of Bill's during a CS meeting convened by APC in September on the sidelines of the MAG consultations, it set me thinking even more about how to get IGC to engage with the ITU. 

Later there were some more emails on the issue of IP trace-backs work being done by the ITU - and I remember one by Fouad - seeking a IGC/ CS stand on the issue.

I propose that we shape for more active engagement with ITU, and for this we set up an IGF standing working group on ITU engagement, or whatever. This group can feed into IGC issues of greatest current importance, and those which are soon forthcoming, apart from suggesting a longer horizon engagement, and also perhaps their views on it, and such. Giving some clear shape to our possible engagements with the ITU is also important in view of the forthcoming ITU's "World Telecommunications Policy Forum" early next year, which seems to be poised to get into some very significant issues. The same group could look into issue of structuring CS engagement with the ITU. Wont be bad if we try to propose some such structure on behalf of IGC as an entity, and see their response. 

I propose that Bill, Jean-Louis and Fouad be the initial members of this group, and whoever else wants to can opt-in. Since among these three, Bill has had the longest engagement with this group, I suggest he convenes the group on IGC's behalf. Others may give their comments. Thanks. 

Parminder 

________________________________

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:40 AM
To: jlfullsack
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

Hi Jean-Louis,

Sorry, I don't recall your comments at Eurodig, maybe I was emailing or something at the time. But I agree with you that the ITU/CS interface, or rather the lack thereof, urgently needs attention, especially since there is at least nominally a review underway in ITU and it'd be good to be useful to the friendly governments that asked for it.  I've raised the matter a number of times on gov list over the years, suggested interested people collaborate, but never managed to stir much interest in this or the ITU more generally.  If Toure's rather provocative speech in Cairo has changed the landscape and people are now concerned about what governments, telcos et al are up to in ITU, great.  I'd of course be happy to talk to you about this stuff, but I don't think the two of us alone can do anything that would matter to ITU, the only thing that might resonate is a collective engagement.

Best,

Bill

On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:12 PM, jlfullsack wrote:

Hi Bill

I beg your pardon for butting in with a personel reminding :

During the the Eurodig session at Strasbourg you mentioned some concerns about the ITU, especially in the field of CS friendliness or inclusion. During the following discussion I expressed my readiness to join you for looking more closely on different issues regarding CS participation in its working and other hot issues concerning this UN  agency, as to draw up some recommendations for the future EURDIC ou whichever MS discussion on IG or general international institutions' governance. Would you be so kind for answering if you agree on this personal proposal. It's possible for me to stay a couple of days in the Geneva area.

All the best

Jean-Louis Fullsack

Have a look to our website www.csdptt.org <http://www.csdptt.org/>  where you'll find an article (in french) entitled 'L'UIT : la vieille dame des télécommunications' which best reflects my own experience with, and opinion about, the ITU 

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: William Drake <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>  

	To: Governance <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>  

	Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:28 AM

	Subject: Re: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

	Hi, 

	The 2nd sounds right, we should meet as early as possible in the week, but after GigaNet would be problematic.

	Best,

	BD

	On Nov 9, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Parminder wrote:

	There is a giganet business meeting on 1st evening 17 to 1830 hours.

	Can we then agree to meet on 2nd - 1730 to 1930. Know it is  a bit late but there isn't any other opportunity IGC gets to meet, other than at IGFs. 

________________________________

	From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
	Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:03 PM
	To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
	Subject: RE: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

	Either date works for me - early evening to allow those who want to take a meal together afterwards would probably suit 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 17:26
	To: 'Ian Peter'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
	Subject: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

	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 1st (eve of IGF) or 2nd (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 

________________________________

	____________________________________________________________
	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

***********************************************************

William J. Drake  

Senior Associate

Centre for International Governance

Graduate Institute of International and

  Development Studies

Geneva, Switzerland

william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch

***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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