[governance] ITU vs. ICANN

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Oct 8 12:50:05 EDT 2010 


On Friday 08 October 2010 09:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> interesting question.
>
> if the ITU so decides, what difference would it actually really make?
> other than raising heat and discord levels, that is.
>
> there is no reason that ICANN would have to accept this decision.
> in fact, according to California law, it cannot accept an external veto.
>    

I am very much against ITU taking over ICANN tasks or taking over its 
supervision, but try not quoting the control of ICANN by California law 
favorably to keep people like me on this of the argument :)


More substantially, I remain of the firm view, expressed often here, 
that our best bet is a new global IG policy and supervisory 
dispensation, which inter alia replaces US's supervision over the ICANN 
( with ICANN continuing to do all the technical functions it does at 
present ), and which is more more open, with multistakeholder 
participation - a new age body. I  am also of the view that such a body 
(with the characteristics we want it to have, or close about ) was more 
likely at WSIS, more likely in the 2007 than today, still more likely 
today then it will be the next year, and its likelihood will keep coming 
down as time passes and more and more governments understand the 
Internet and how to control it.... There may just still be time.

The alternatives to what I propose is an emerging IG regime, which is 
shaping up right now in front of our eyes, with the following compoments 
- greater ITU role, plus ACTA kind of plurilateral treaties 
undemocratically imposed on less powerful governments, plus national 
governments doing arbitrary and ad hoc controls and regulation over the 
Internet plus ad hoc GAC's interventions, without then being based on an 
clear principles, plus of course US being able to do anything it wants 
to the global critical Internet resources whenever it wants to (see 
discussions on COICA Bill in the US).

The best way forward for  civil society is to support a global process 
of developing general principles for Internet policies, along with new 
institutional mechanism to overlook the implementation of these 
principles and policies. And it will be best if civil society takes lead 
in this. That would our best best way to get as much foot in as 
possible..... I just keep hoping one day we will wake up to this 
imperative :) Parminder

> and there is no reason why those who are already in the GAC would have to accept it either, because unless i am mistaken, ITU decisions do not have the value of treaties - and even then treaties only count after nations have signed them.  and in fact withdrawing from GAC would just decrease the near veto they already have on the ICANN Board.
>
> interesting times.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2010, at 11:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>    
>> "US and Russia face off over ICANN veto power
>>
>>
>>
>> Kevin Murphy, October 6, 2010, 13:14:29 (UTC), Domain Policy
>>
>> The ruling body of the International Telecommunications Union this week kicked off a major policy-making meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, and has already seen the US and Russia taking opposing stances over the future control of ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> A group of former Soviet nations, chaired by the Russian Federation's Minister of Communications, seems to have proposed that the ITU should give itself veto power over ICANN decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> A proposal filed by the Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (RCC) calls for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee to be scrapped and replaced by an ITU group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Consideration should be given to the expediency of having the functions of GAC carried out by a specially-constituted group within ITU with the authority to veto decisions adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors. If it is so decided, the ITU Secretary-General should be instructed to consult ICANN on the matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposal was first noted by Gregory Francis at CircleID.
>>
>>
>>
>> It says that the GAC is currently the only avenue open to governments to "defend their interests" but that it has "no decision-making authority and can do no more than express its wishes".
>>
>>
>>
>> It also notes that fewer than 50% of nations are members of the GAC, and that only 20% or fewer actually participate in GAC meetings.
>>
>>
>>
>> The proposal was apparently submitted to the ongoing ITU Plenipotentiary Conference but, in contrast to ICANN's policy of transparency, many ITU documents are only accessible to its members.
>>
>>
>>
>> A reader was kind enough to send me text extracted from the document. I've been unable to verify its authenticity, but I've no particular reason to believe it's bogus.
>>
>>
>>
>> The RCC was set up in 1991 to increase cooperation between telecommunications and postal operators in the post-Soviet era. Its board is comprised of communications ministers from a dozen nations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Its position on ICANN appears to be also held by the Russian government. Igor Shchegolev, its communications minister, is chair of the RCC board.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the Plenipotentiary on Tuesday, Shechegolev said (via Google Translate):
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe that the ITU is capable of such tasks to international public policy, Internet governance, its development and finally, protection of interests of countries in ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, the US has committed itself to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as embodied by ICANN. The State Department's Philip Verveer told the conference:
>>
>>
>>
>> the ITU should be a place where the development of the Internet is fostered. The Internet has progressed and evolved in a remarkably successful way under the existing multi-stakeholder arrangements. Changes, especially changes involving inter-governmental controls, are likely to impair the dynamism of the Internet-something we all have an interest in avoiding.
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN itself has no formal presence at the Plenipotentiary, after ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Toure turned down a request by ICANN president Rod Beckstrom for observer status.
>>
>>
>>
>> The conference carries on until October 22. It's likely that we haven't heard the last of the anti-ICANN rhetoric."
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101008/ebc68ca5/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