[governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Feb 16 21:20:45 EST 2010
There is a good amount of truth in your analysis Siva, but I do not
understand that when you so roundly criticize ITU for its business
association why is that ICANN/ ISOC/ ITEF/ RIRs etc escape your notice
on similar counts. Parminder
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> Hello Katiza
>
> ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the
> dictum that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away
> from the sea shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea;
> if the capital is close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to
> the members of the Government, so there is greater likelihood of the
> merchants corrupting the politicians). Telecom corporations have the
> rare advantage of being seated alongside Government at the ITU. This
> anomalous position makes it possible for the telecoms to exercise an
> undue influence on governments, unnoticed by the Governments.
>
> The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be
> standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established
> standards for telegraphic and phone communication.
>
> Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom
> corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes
> in their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a
> part of this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with
> a business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part.
>
> This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions
> of any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence
> national and global policies related to all communication. ITU's core
> concern is that it should govern and control all business of
> communication. The ITU sets policies and rules in all communication:
> Telegraphs, telephones, mobile phones and it also manages the RF
> spectrum and satellite communications with the exception of the Internet.
>
> ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by
> telecom companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take
> charge of the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not
> happen as the Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The
> Internet evolved to be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it shape
> as a world on its own.
>
> In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it
> couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered
> the Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not
> decision) related to the Internet.
>
> This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization
> with its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet
> threatened the business models of telecom companies as technologies
> such as email, VOIP began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found
> a new breed of phone companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU
> rules becoming phenomenally successful and an emerging threat to phone
> company revenues.
>
> The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the
> Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all
> of which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet
> architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So
> the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards process.
> The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU
> umbrella by taking over a vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That
> could ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. But for
> overall control, ITU needs to take over Internet Governance with the
> argument that easily fools at least a few policy makers: that the ITU
> is a well organized, 145 year old organization that has 191 national
> governments as its members. It attempts to derive a position in policy
> making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) by
> interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in
> reality a business union.
>
> The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an
> attempt to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena.
> The ITU asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For
> instance, at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said "
> We have no intention whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what
> the ICANN is doing best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what
> is the mandate of the ITU of policy-making, public-policy issues and
> so on"
>
> That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that
> policy making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate
> and unequaled role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was
> somehow allowed to slip in without a challenge at the IGF.
>
> At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation
> system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation
> of IP addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the
> Secretary General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to
> take over ICANN.
>
> ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet
> Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes
> the 'tensions'.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez
> <katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>
> My constructive dissection:
>
> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the
> IGF as an institution;
>
> for example, we are content that it remain formally convened
> by the UN
> Secretary General, with an independent budget and a
> Secretariat under contract
> with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social
> Affairs (UNDESA). We
> do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a
> different UN body.
>
> I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in
> moving underneath
> a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position.
> Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more
> directly. (Spit
> it out)
>
> Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the
> IGF is to be
> subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF
> remain independent
> of the UN umbrella.
>
> I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent
> IGF for serval
> reasons,
> 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that
> want to hose the
> IGF
> 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among
> Equals' (among
> all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy,
> underwritten by the MDG and
> WSIS Declarations.
> 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement
> establishes the
> IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence.
> ...
> Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them
> (Dese & Markus)
> the fuel to fight.
> I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in
> fact now is the
> time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de
> La Chapelle puts
> it can come later.
>
> Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin
> too "Piercing the
> corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility'
> of the UN
> Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the
> determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made
> real-time and
> transparent to All.
>
> I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel
> They (the
> UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with
> US, in regards to
> Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's
> transactions/actions were
> evidence of the fact.
> ---
>
> * Piercing the corporate Veil
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100217/714bcb3e/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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list