[governance] Fw: ITU and CS : moving forward

Mon Nov 24 10:16:05 EST 2008

sorry for reposting; Bill's address was errored 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: jlfullsack 
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
Cc: parminder:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:12 PM
Subject: ITU and CS : moving forward

Bonjour Parminder, Bill and all

I'd just complete my earlier message (see below) on a future ITU reform and CS inclusion. 

One of the main themes to be addressed among those mentioned in my previous message, is how far Internet issues can be discussed in the specialized ITU bodies such as ITU-T, ITU-R and even ITU-D. When questioning that, we should keep in mind the broad spectrum of IC technology, architecture and network issues that are sussessfully dealt with in the standardisation area. Therefore debating/evaluating about the Internet stuff that could be valuably integrated in the ITU WGs and standardization process could proove adequate. In effect, a part of these issues is aleady dealt with by the ITU (e.g. VoIP, NGN, e-apllications,  ...). Of course adding such a work into the ITU activities needs additive resources, especially in financing. This is another issue that governments should tackle with more consistency than up to now at the Administrative Council, and especially during its next Plenipotenntiary conference (2010).

I know that a lot of our people are rather reluctant on such a move -a leap for some- from current bodies (mainly IETF, but also other ones such as ICANN) to a multilateral UN agency. But Internet has grown to a broad, global "net of nets", and become for most of CS organizations a "global public good". This deserves that at least its "essential/critical resources" should/could be transferred to the ITU. How and at which extend this could take place is still open for discussion. Especially under the IGF auspices. But, for the sake of this to be discussed objectively, I'd quote the IGC Statement II of its February Meeting in Geneva :
" In any case, the variety sought should be more in terms of different points of views, rather than just different stakeholders, because it is possible to gather a panel of different stakeholders with a narrow range of views on a particular subject".

And my proposal above is actually a very "particular subject" ! 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: jlfullsack 
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; William Drake 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

Dear all

Let me express my divine surprise after having read all these messages on the ITU and its long overdue reform. 

Moreover, I hear from these messages that for some of the mailers this interest goes back to the WSIS. And what’s more some of our prominent fellows even were in discussion with some ITU high ranking staff upon the matter ! 

Thus, why am I not that enthusiastic about this new approach of CS on this old issue ? Simply because when I expressed my concerns about ITU, both on its neoliberal drifts and on its CS exclusion policy, in our plenaries at the very beginning of WSIS, either I was told that this is’nt on the agenda, or my opinion and concerns were simply ignored. 

That's why I presented all the statements on the ITU urgent need of reform (note : reform and not  a cosmetic revamping!) during the different meetings –including intergouvernemental ones and plenaries- on behalf of my organisation and with the support of some working groups (financing, African diaspora, etc…). You can still read all these statements on our website www.csdptt.org, in French of course, but a few are also in English. 

This being said, I try to believe in this new interest on the ITU by the CS community and, first of all, I’d thank Parminder for having included me in the “initial group”: at least it will respect a minimum of “cultural/language diversity” (one of our hypes at WSIS and still very topical).

However, for me the question isn’t only to be “inside” but “for what to say/to do”?  

As I mentioned  above, there are –besides CS inclusion- a lot of issues at the ITU, and some are very serious. They encompass policy, finance, strategy, but also new matters to be dealt with such as ICT/Tlc equipment design taking in account power consumption, renewable energy sources for feeding equipment, network nodes and terminals or premises, a holistic approach in network architecture design, cross-sectoral synergy and fertilisation, etc ...

It also should be mentioned here that Europe (both the Council of Europe and the European Union) intend to set up a “European FGI” and are willing to address issues such as ITU governance and the achievements obtained (if there are …) and to be obtained in the different Action lines. This was discussed during the EuroDig meeting at Strasbourg a month ago, and both Bill and myself agreed to push in this direction. Needless to say that my priorities are here. Nevertheless, this doesn’t exclude my participation to the WG Parminder suggested..

Finally I’d (perhaps) surprise all of you if I tell you that I found Toure’s speech not bad at all ! Perhaps should it be completed by some additional remarks on the responsibilities of the ITU, i.a. in the so-called telecom development, and recall the ITU top officials that the Maitland Report was published in1984. Twenty four years later we are still waiting on the “missing link” for bridging the “digital divide” … And not to be forgotten : ten years after an aggressive neoliberal policy, mostly driven by the ITU, well seconded by the WB!

Sorry for my long message and thanks for your interest for having a better and more open ITU, for the sake of DCs particularly. 

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: William Drake 
  To: Parminder 
  Cc: Governance ; jlfullsack ; Fouad Bajwa 
  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] IGF, Hyderabad

  Hi, 

  Thanks Parminder for the suggestion.  It's not obvious to me whether it would be better to start with a small wg (which might be efficient but also could continue the local ghettoization of the issues) or try booting up some caucus-wide engagement (which would rapidly become needed anyway---the WTPF is in the Spring, will have strong governmental engagement, and hence ought to be of at least as much of a priority as an IGF conference).  It would also be good to check in with friendly staff and Members to get a clearer sense of where the ITU's review process is and how best to interface with it.

  My suggestion would be that we put this high on the agenda of the caucus meeting in Hyderabad and think through our approach there.  In the meanwhile I'll be back in Geneva next week and will see if I can fill in the background a bit more. 

  Best,

  Bill

  On Nov 19, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Parminder wrote:

    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 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
      To: Governance
      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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20081124/93301496/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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